music theory question
joseph w kim
I understand music theory tries to find patterns in music and theorize
about what chords/notes make sense next to each other. What is the
significance of music theory? To my knowledge most popular music came
from people who have never learned music theory. Is not music theory
limiting in that it only allows certain combinations that "make sense?"
Inotmark
>Is not music theory
>limiting in that it only allows certain combinations that "make sense?"
no more limiting than english, or math, both of which only allow certain
combinations that 'make sense'.
Joey Goldstein
joseph w kim wrote:
>
> I understand music theory tries to find patterns in music and theorize
> about what chords/notes make sense next to each other. What is the
> significance of music theory? To my knowledge most popular music came
> from people who have never learned music theory.
Those folks are playing on instruments and using scales and chords that
were designed by people who did know some theory.
We humans respond to music in the subconscious mind. There are layers of
order in the sound of musical pitched tones that we do not need to be
conscious of in order to be able to appreciate the sound. There are
layers of order in the unfolding of a melody or of a chord progression
or of an entire piece that we do not need to be conscious of in order to
appreciate the music. If we are conscious of these things we often enjoy
them even more.
Since music began the audience has not had to be comprised of musicians.
Most humans resopnd to musical sound even if they do not consciously
understand what it is that they are responding to. The actual
instruments we play and the scales we use were all designed by ancient
philosphers and scientists and theorists. But the common people have
been exposed to these sounds for several millenia now and we have all
learned to hear certain combinations of tones and rhythms with ease.
These sounds are now a part of our cultural and psychological makeup.
Put another way, we have inherited a huge amount of more or less
subconscious musical understanding from our ancestors.
A typical young pop musican today usually gets started with a few
friends showing him some grips on the guitar. If he has any musical
intuition he will start exploring those sounds and start looking for
combinations that sound familiar and that he likes. He is playing off of
the life's work of several thousand musical ancestors and he doesn't
even know it. Those chords he learned came from somewhere. That guitar
came from somewhere. The scale that we tune the guitar to came from
somewhere. Those power chords came from somewhere.
Our young pop musician/heir can happily noodle away on his guitar
without concerning himself much with where his toys and those familiar
sounds came from but a serious musician wants to know these things.
> Is not music theory
> limiting in that it only allows certain combinations that "make sense?"
No. Music theory seeks to explain why musical ideas make sense. The
musical ideas usually come first, then the theory. But theoretical ideas
can also help a composer look for things that should make sense too.
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
David Webber
"joseph w kim" <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.020126...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu...
Music theory does not "allow" or "forbid" things - it describes them in a
consistent framework.
A lot of popular music probably *has* come from people without *formal*
training in music theory, but as soon as you pick up a guitar you start to
acquire various bits of it. For example popular music composers will
rapidly learn that A7-D does the same thing as G7-C only a little bit
higher. As soon as you start to analyse that (or even think it) you're
using music theory, maybe without knowing it.
Just because you don't know what a "Neapolitan 6th" is, doesn't mean you are
not using theory. But I suspect that the composers of more sophisticated
popular music learn more as they go along than some others. If you trace
the Beatles output over 10 years or so, there is an immense change from very
simple songs to much more complex ones; I'm sure lennon and McCartney
learned a lot of theory as they went along.
Dave
--
Dave Webber
Author of MOZART the Music Processor for Windows - http://www.mozart.co.uk
Member of the North Cheshire Concert Band http://www.northcheshire.org.uk
Joey Goldstein
In order to drive a car you don't really need to know anything more
about how cars are built than that they have a steering wheel and an accelerator.
But if you're a professional race car driver, or his pit boss, you're
going to want to know a lot more about how the car works. If you're in
the business of designing race cars you'll probably study the designs of
every other car that came before.
joe
David Webber wrote in message
<1012070518.7554.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>Music theory does not "allow" or "forbid" things - it describes them in a
>consistent framework.
Doesn't it describe what chords are to be 'associated' with other chords?
In that sense it doesn't only describe but places value on some chord/note
combinations while devaluing others.
What is the role of music theory? Is it to help compose music? What about
the emotions associated with chord/note combinations? Does the theory go
into that realm?
>Just because you don't know what a "Neapolitan 6th" is, doesn't mean you
are
>not using theory. But I suspect that the composers of more sophisticated
>popular music learn more as they go along than some others. If you trace
>the Beatles output over 10 years or so, there is an immense change from
very
>simple songs to much more complex ones; I'm sure lennon and McCartney
>learned a lot of theory as they went along.
So basically even before they wrote their complex songs, the value of the
chord combinations in those complex songs were already well documented in
music theory?
>
>Dave
>
joe
Inotmark wrote in message <20020126125708...@mb-mh.aol.com>...
In music, the only mode of expression is through the nature of the
note/chords themselves and the particular combination in which they are
placed in. So saying that a certain combination is preferable to another
combination would persuade you to choose a particular route of expression.
But in english, it is not only certain combinations that 'make sense' but a
great variety of choice in expression although we are confined by the rules
of grammer. The rules in this case are THE mode of expression whereas music
theory describes certain combinations of notes/chords WITHIN THE MODE that
it deems to have value.
Mathematics on the other hand is a PURELY descriptive science and does not
allow any room for "expression" in the same sense of musical "expression."
The rules of mathematics is THE mode of expression (purely of facts) of a
particular phenomena.
joe
Joey Goldstein wrote in message <3C5307C9...@nowhere.net>...
>Look at it this way.
>
>In order to drive a car you don't really need to know anything more
>about how cars are built than that they have a steering wheel and an
accelerator.
>
>But if you're a professional race car driver, or his pit boss, you're
>going to want to know a lot more about how the car works. If you're in
>the business of designing race cars you'll probably study the designs of
>every other car that came before.
>
It seems more natural songwriting (and more respectable) for an individual
to discover his/her own chord/note combinations instead of having
hypothesized about them through research in music theory. Someone else
stated that those people are doing 'music theory' despite being aware of it.
But what I think it means to actually be doing 'music theory' is to approach
song-writing from a mostly technical viewpoint. I understand there are
technical elements to writing a song but I believe this technical aspect
should only be a means toward an end. Songwriting should start emotionally,
with the aim to refine this emotion (however complex it may be) through use
of technical means.
Music is a mostly emotional phenomena. It is made with the intent to get an
emotional response (whatever that may be) from the public. Music theory may
one day be programmed into a computer, in which case the "emotional
response" would've been created artificially. In this case almost no effort
was put into musical composition, instead we instantaneously obtain a piece
artificially designed for emotional response. How are we to take awe in and
be impressed by something which by its very existence reveals how shallow we
are. Music becomes as easily manufactured as any other product out there.
Joey Goldstein
It sounds like your mind is already made up so why are you even
bothering to ask the question?
Thomas A. Korth
"joe" <wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2PF48.10274$tg4.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
(snip)
>
> Music is a mostly emotional phenomena. It is made with the intent to get
an
> emotional response (whatever that may be) from the public. Music theory
may
> one day be programmed into a computer, in which case the "emotional
> response" would've been created artificially. In this case almost no
effort
> was put into musical composition, instead we instantaneously obtain a
piece
> artificially designed for emotional response. How are we to take awe in
and
> be impressed by something which by its very existence reveals how shallow
we
> are. Music becomes as easily manufactured as any other product out there.
>
Maintenance" for insight into the whole classic/romantic
(emotional/rational; feeling/thinking) issue.
I think that most of us who compose or improvise rely on our theoretical
knowledge for many things musical, not the least of which is to get through
"stuck" points.
Tom
Dr.Matt
joe <wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>David Webber wrote in message
><1012070518.7554.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>Music theory does not "allow" or "forbid" things - it describes them in a
>>consistent framework.
>
>Doesn't it describe what chords are to be 'associated' with other chords?
>In that sense it doesn't only describe but places value on some chord/note
>combinations while devaluing others.
Only in the sense in which such groups of combinations apply to making
a particular sound. In other words, such "preferences" are abstractions
of the patterns found in particular styles.
>What is the role of music theory? Is it to help compose music? What about
>the emotions associated with chord/note combinations? Does the theory go
>into that realm?
All of the above and more. Music theory is a much broader field than
you have apparently been exposed to. It covers all attempts to extract
meaningful, intriguing, useful patterns and abstractions from the
concrete facts of music. When I say "concrete fact", that means things
like that the opening notes of Beethoven's 5th symphony are
G G G Eb, F F F D.
>>Just because you don't know what a "Neapolitan 6th" is, doesn't mean you
>are
>>not using theory. But I suspect that the composers of more sophisticated
>>popular music learn more as they go along than some others. If you trace
>>the Beatles output over 10 years or so, there is an immense change from
>very
>>simple songs to much more complex ones; I'm sure lennon and McCartney
>>learned a lot of theory as they went along.
>
>So basically even before they wrote their complex songs, the value of the
>chord combinations in those complex songs were already well documented in
>music theory?
Yes, because they had been stumbled and experimented with and gradually
explained and distilled by composers for the preceding 2000 years.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
joe
>
>It sounds like your mind is already made up so why are you even
>bothering to ask the question?
I'm not anti- music theory, it just feels somewhat artificial to me. The
future of music composition may well lie in computer programs which might be
able to produce work much more impressive than anything written by humans.
That's where I see music theory eventually being applied to. It might be in
the future that the programmers of automated music composers will be as
highly regarded as Beethoven was in his time.
Dr.Matt
Hmmm, from the point of view of syntax and semantics, music as
illucidated by music theory is profoundly more free than either of
English as illucidated by grammar and meaning, or mathematics as
illucidated by formal logic.
In attempting to understand this, you might want to compare notions
of well-formedness, notions of meaning, and notions of value, and attempt
to understand the differences between these three concepts.
Dr.Matt
joe <wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Joey Goldstein wrote in message <3C5307C9...@nowhere.net>...
>>Look at it this way.
>>
>>In order to drive a car you don't really need to know anything more
>>about how cars are built than that they have a steering wheel and an
>accelerator.
>>
>>But if you're a professional race car driver, or his pit boss, you're
>>going to want to know a lot more about how the car works. If you're in
>>the business of designing race cars you'll probably study the designs of
>>every other car that came before.
>>
>
>It seems more natural songwriting (and more respectable) for an individual
>to discover his/her own chord/note combinations instead of having
>hypothesized about them through research in music theory.
Since "research in music theory" is no more and no less than studying
lots of other music, you seem to have just recommended re-inventing the
wheel.
> Someone else
>stated that those people are doing 'music theory' despite being aware of it.
>But what I think it means to actually be doing 'music theory' is to approach
>song-writing from a mostly technical viewpoint. I understand there are
>technical elements to writing a song but I believe this technical aspect
>should only be a means toward an end. Songwriting should start emotionally,
>with the aim to refine this emotion (however complex it may be) through use
>of technical means.
I'll do my music-making any way I want to, regardless of what Shoulds you
attempt to impose upon me, thank you very much.
>Music is a mostly emotional phenomena. It is made with the intent to get an
>emotional response (whatever that may be) from the public.
About the only thing you can say across the board about music is NOT
that it is done for emotion but that it is done to make a special sound.
> Music theory may
>one day be programmed into a computer, in which case the "emotional
>response" would've been created artificially.
This started 50 years ago.
> In this case almost no effort
>was put into musical composition, instead we instantaneously obtain a piece
>artificially designed for emotional response. How are we to take awe in and
>be impressed by something which by its very existence reveals how shallow we
>are. Music becomes as easily manufactured as any other product out there.
These philosophic issues face people in every field of endeavor.
Throwing away all past knowledge and starting from a position of utter
ignorance, on the theory that your creations will thus have a more
genuine value than those of a more studious individual, is a popular
point of view among failed poets, failed philosophers, and crackpot
scientists as well as failed musicians. This point of view runs
completely counter to the values of civilization, in which ideas
accumulate from generation to generation.
Dr.Matt
joe <wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>It sounds like your mind is already made up so why are you even
>>bothering to ask the question?
>
>I'm not anti- music theory, it just feels somewhat artificial to me. The
>future of music composition may well lie in computer programs which might be
>able to produce work much more impressive than anything written by humans.
>That's where I see music theory eventually being applied to. It might be in
>the future that the programmers of automated music composers will be as
>highly regarded as Beethoven was in his time.
This started 50 years ago.
I don't use computers to automate my compositional process, though I
do use computers to assist in the drudgery of music notation. But I
DO constantly make use of 35 years of music-theoretical study (which
has not ceased). May I invite you to visit my web page and listen
to the mp3 clips on it and see whether my music fulfills the promise
of going far beyond the ordinary realm of music made by "theoretical
ignoramuses". The link is below.
joe
>explained and distilled by composers for the preceding 2000 years.
But what about the phenomena of rediscovery? Even if the significance of
the chord combinations was found out long time ago, the *use* of the
particular chord combination in music was never so realized as in, say, a
certain Beatles song. It may well be that the "music theory" behind the
song was discovered a while back, but the song is still new in that it was
not influenced by the "music theory" and instead came from the talents of
the songwriters.
What is the significance of a "discovery" if a musician has to rediscover it
on his/her own? Would it not be in fact two seperate discoveries the
significance of which only depends on the context of the musicians
themselves?
Josh Dougherty
> about what chords/notes make sense next to each other.
Where you are going with this is wrong in principle. Music theory
does not try to find combinations to throw out as "unusable" by, or
unvaluable" for, anyone who wishes to compose music in the present or
future.
Music theory does not tell anyone what they can or can not do.
> What is the significance of music theory?
This question is way to broad to answer. The significance is
acquiring knowledge of how existing music works and what people have
done to produce the results they did.
> To my knowledge most popular music came from people who have never learned
> music theory.
First, what are you considering "popular music" and why is this music
your determinate for what everyone else should do or not do?
Second, I'd assume that many have learned and many haven't. As just
one example off the top of my head, I'd bet that Billy Joel is most
likely quite well versed in traditional music theory. The group Phish
are also all graduates of music colleges I think. You could probably
construct a rather long list. And, as others have pointed out, the
ones that don't consciously delve into music theory acquire it on a
gradual basis nonetheless and it informs their choices as well.
Third, with your angle of "limiting chord combinations while excluding
others", any simple statistical look at what I think you mean by
"popular music" would probably show that it uses a much more narrow
and restricted set of chord combinations than many other styles of
music where its' practitioners are typically more fluent in music
theory. So, the only conclusion is that ignorance of theory places
greater limitations on what the musician will produce than does
knowledge of theory.
> Is not music theory limiting in that it only allows certain combinations
> that "make sense?"
No, it's not. Music theory does not "allow" or "forbid" anyone to use
or not use any chord combinations. OTOH, ignorance of chord
combinations will more often than not "forbid" their use by default.
Josh
joe
>
>I don't use computers to automate my compositional process, though I
>do use computers to assist in the drudgery of music notation. But I
>DO constantly make use of 35 years of music-theoretical study (which
>has not ceased). May I invite you to visit my web page and listen
>to the mp3 clips on it and see whether my music fulfills the promise
>of going far beyond the ordinary realm of music made by "theoretical
>ignoramuses". The link is below.
Just out of curiosity, did Beethoven use music theory, or did any popular
musicians? I am curious how much of music theory actually enters mainstream
music. (much of which I admit is in very poor quality these days) Of
course I am talking about "music theory" as actually being studied, and not
the notion that they were theorizing without even being aware of it.
joe
>lots of other music, you seem to have just recommended re-inventing the
>wheel.
"research in music theory" appears more technical and dry than listening to
music you like and being inspired by it. Of course not to say that being
thus inspired, you leap over all technical aspects of songwriting. There is
such a thing as too much research, reading too much into a work, being too
technical, etc.
>I'll do my music-making any way I want to, regardless of what Shoulds you
>attempt to impose upon me, thank you very much.
Well, I have my own ideals. I've been strongly influenced by a band that
created their own sound, their own expression, all the while in a scene of
artificial music.
Not to say that "music theory" encourages artificial music, there is a need
for everything. Perhaps music theory serves as a background on which
all/most important music springs. Perhaps it serves as a sort of
encyclopedia of facts on which individuals can seek out and be enlightened
about music.
>
>>Music is a mostly emotional phenomena. It is made with the intent to get
an
>>emotional response (whatever that may be) from the public.
>
>About the only thing you can say across the board about music is NOT
>that it is done for emotion but that it is done to make a special sound.
>
And about that special sound, does it not convey something (or mean to
convey something), whatever that may be, so that the listener will be
affected? We make music to make sounds, as distinguishable from a drippy
faucet why?
>
>These philosophic issues face people in every field of endeavor.
>
>Throwing away all past knowledge and starting from a position of utter
>ignorance, on the theory that your creations will thus have a more
>genuine value than those of a more studious individual, is a popular
>point of view among failed poets, failed philosophers, and crackpot
>scientists as well as failed musicians. This point of view runs
>completely counter to the values of civilization, in which ideas
>accumulate from generation to generation.
I am not suggesting that all music starts from nothing and becomes
something. I believe in musical history, that music evolves, that different
types of music have had their place, that music should not merely exist for
the sake of existing,. I am not at all encouraging an anti-studious
mentality.
paramucho
There are two main uses of so-called "Music Theory".
The first is as you describe it in your opening sentence: the search
for patterns in music by "theorists". This is a form of observation
and classification.
The second area is in the teaching of music practice in schools of
various kinds by "teachers". To do this teachers often reduce the
observations and classifications of theorists to a set of rules.
The theorist is usually well aware the his or her observations are
both incomplete and subject to numerous exceptions. The teacher is as
well, but has the task of presenting the material to novices who might
only be confused by the nuances.
Then there's the student/novice to consider as well.
Jepperson, who studied the counterpoint of Palestrina, comments on
this process on page one of his book KONTRAPUNKT, as a warning. I'll
summarize the German rather brutally rather than translate it:
Historically it sometimes has the appearance that theory preceded
practice. Parallel fifths were "forbidden" by theorists long before
composers such as Palestrina achieved complete avoidance. However,
this is an illusion. The process was as follows: Theorists
discovered that parallel fifths were being avoided in some music
and formulated rules to cover this behavior and did so in their
typically strict manner.
Later students, anxious to learn music correctly, studied the
writings of the theorists. A rule written on paper has an magic,
dangerous power. The student follows the rule out of fear. The
history of language is similar.
So, it's certainly true that theory can be a limiting factor. An
assumption is that the better composers will see through the game and
that the rest don't matter. Put more kindly, how else can you *teach*
music without expecting every child learning bassoon or oboe to
understand the mature world of the theorist. Most of them will never
develop the interest.
However you look at it, the teaching of theory involves a dumbing down
of the substance for most students. Prout, for example, is a little
better and notes all the exceptions to "the rules" he can find, but it
would be a brave student who made use of his "exceptions" when sitting
an examination, and he does rather gently suggests they avoid them.
The teaching of music also propagates the prevailing style of music.
It's here that your second point grips. Pop musicians, such as the
Beatles, had a good knowledge of Western music through their listening
and performing, but were not subjected to the style-training of music
schools. McCartney has said a number of times that he started studying
once or twice, but intuitively shied away, sensing that it might
constrain him.
Loving theory such as I do I long thought he was wrong, but more
recently I've had to agree with him. Syncopation is quite different in
rock to the way he would have been taught. Singing with a microphone
requires different techniques to those developed for the opera house.
Harmony based on a I-IV-I paradigm or non-tonal devices is quite
different to what he would have been taught.
The Beatles et al were pioneers of a new style. These days it would be
possible to describe the "practice of rock" in the same way that
Jeppeson has the described counterpoint of old. In fact, I'm working
on something like that, but the fear is that the same dumbing down
process will also take place in teaching the stuff. The final ignominy
is that their music would be reduced to a set of rules taught in
exactly the same schools that once thought of them as the musical
anti-Christ.
Such is the joy of life.
Ian
paramucho
<da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"joseph w kim" <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.GSO.4.31.020126...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
>> I understand music theory tries to find patterns in music and theorize
>> about what chords/notes make sense next to each other. What is the
>> significance of music theory? To my knowledge most popular music came
>> from people who have never learned music theory. Is not music theory
>> limiting in that it only allows certain combinations that "make sense?"
>
>Music theory does not "allow" or "forbid" things - it describes them in a
>consistent framework.
>
>A lot of popular music probably *has* come from people without *formal*
>training in music theory, but as soon as you pick up a guitar you start to
>acquire various bits of it. For example popular music composers will
>rapidly learn that A7-D does the same thing as G7-C only a little bit
>higher. As soon as you start to analyse that (or even think it) you're
>using music theory, maybe without knowing it.
>
>Just because you don't know what a "Neapolitan 6th" is, doesn't mean you are
>not using theory. But I suspect that the composers of more sophisticated
>popular music learn more as they go along than some others. If you trace
>the Beatles output over 10 years or so, there is an immense change from very
>simple songs to much more complex ones; I'm sure lennon and McCartney
>learned a lot of theory as they went along.
The early Beatle works can be surprisingly conservative and more
correct. There's a mixture of received style and their own, at times
clumbsy devices. As time goes by they tend to evolve their own devices
into something more sophisticated.
The earlier songs were *more* complex in some senses. You'll
augmented triads, flat supertonics, counterpoint etc in their earliest
pieces, in some cases because they had more time to hone their songs
before writing for the recording studio.
In the years from 1963 to 1965 we see them become young masters, so to
speak, of the classic pop song forms in many styles. This ends with
the quiet perfection of the songs on RUBBER SOUL, such as "Norwegian
Wood", "Michelle", "Girl" etc, each a style vignette.
Its in 1966 and 1967 that they break the mould and feel strong enough
to follow their own intuitions more radically, aided by chemical
substances. The "rules" that they broke then were largely those of
popular music -- i.e. their own rules: i.e. ignoring dance rhythm
periods, dumping the "I love you" lyric theme, etc. The innovations in
this period have little to do becoming more text book oriented. They
develop their own form of bitonic songs, feel completely free to shape
song form as best suits a theme, develop the coda to a new complete
section etc. A baroque explosion in which they trust in their original
intuitions and their own initially clumbsy devices more strongly.
In 1968 they consolidate by integrating their new knowledge back into
the traditional pop forms -- the result was their ART OF ROCK, the
WHITE ALBUM. The result is the best of both worlds. It's at the detail
level that they progress. The rough lumping together of two different
songs in "A Day In The Life" becomes "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" where
the rigid concepts of verse/bridge/ and chorus are surplanted by a
free, fluid sectional form. Harmonically, the alternation of chords
such as F7 and D7 become a replacement for diminished harmony.
In early 1969 they go Back To Bonn, so to speak, and work again as a
live four piece band, deliberately eschewing the sophistication of the
WHITE ALBUM.
The final album, ABBEY ROAD again consolidates, with a set of mostly
simple tracks combining the live approach with WHITE ALBUM techniques.
Quintessential Pop rock.
Any musician worth his or her salt has a knowledge of musical theory,
but that wasn't Joseph Kim's point: he was asking whether learning
traditional theory might not be constraining. I think the answer is,
for some, when looking at the Beatles, a definite "yes".
Ian
Greg Laing
Computer music would require a great deal of effort on the part of the
programmer. I've wondered what kind of programs could be written myself, as
there are many rules of part-writing for various styles. There is a
parallel problem, if we want to call it that, in the game of chess.
Computers have become the dominant force in that arena, but it doesn't seem
to have diminished or taken anything away from the game. The computers have
their own style, very different from the human players. Compared to chess,
music is less scientific/logical and more artistic/creative...not sure if
computers will ever be creating masterworks, at least not on a regular
basis. There may be a number of programs that will create listenable
output, but this will probably be more of a novelty than anything else.
Maybe we'll get programs that do this, but I doubt if they'll produce
anything more than a bunch of stuff that starts sounding the same after
awhile. My response to that will probably be something like, 'listen to
that...sounds like a computer!' I've seen a few drum loop programs that
sound cool. The computer is more of a tool than a composer in and of
itself, and it will probably stay that way.
paramucho
wrote:
>>These philosophic issues face people in every field of endeavor.
>>
>>Throwing away all past knowledge and starting from a position of utter
>>ignorance, on the theory that your creations will thus have a more
>>genuine value than those of a more studious individual, is a popular
>>point of view among failed poets, failed philosophers, and crackpot
>>scientists as well as failed musicians. This point of view runs
>>completely counter to the values of civilization, in which ideas
>>accumulate from generation to generation.
>
>I am not suggesting that all music starts from nothing and becomes
>something. I believe in musical history, that music evolves, that different
>types of music have had their place, that music should not merely exist for
>the sake of existing,. I am not at all encouraging an anti-studious
>mentality.
No-one has suggested throwing away "all past knowledge" -- Matt just
likes to take these things to extreme positions.
Ian
paramucho
wrote:
>> Is not music theory limiting in that it only allows certain combinations
>> that "make sense?"
>
>No, it's not. Music theory does not "allow" or "forbid" anyone to use
>or not use any chord combinations. OTOH, ignorance of chord
>combinations will more often than not "forbid" their use by default.
Music theory, as taught in schools and books, certainly does have
rules which allow or forbid many things.
Ian
joe
paramucho wrote in message <3c544593...@news2.ozemail.com.au>...
You've clarified much for me. But on a sidenote I don't really like The
Beatles (though I recognize their significance and place in history), nor do
I like the majority of popular music.
joe
Just wondering, how many others have had made similar viewpoints such as my
own on this newsgroup?
joe wrote in message <1bJ48.10359$tg4.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
Dr.Matt
You're using a machine you didn't personally design from the ground up.
Stop using computers.
--
Dr.Matt
joe <wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>This started 50 years ago.
>>
>True, but not in the realm of mainstream music, which I was referring to.
It was the mainstream of classical music. I don't care what you were
referring to.
>>I don't use computers to automate my compositional process, though I
>>do use computers to assist in the drudgery of music notation. But I
>>DO constantly make use of 35 years of music-theoretical study (which
>>has not ceased). May I invite you to visit my web page and listen
>>to the mp3 clips on it and see whether my music fulfills the promise
>>of going far beyond the ordinary realm of music made by "theoretical
>>ignoramuses". The link is below.
>
>Just out of curiosity, did Beethoven use music theory, or did any popular
>musicians? I am curious how much of music theory actually enters mainstream
>music. (much of which I admit is in very poor quality these days) Of
>course I am talking about "music theory" as actually being studied, and not
>the notion that they were theorizing without even being aware of it.
Almost everybody who you admire studied music--including the theoretic
materials--extensively. I've heard B B King carry on at great length
on matters purely theoretical, at a concert of his...
Beethoven's theoretical training was extremely extensive.
Okay, now go ahead and click the link and listen to the music...
Dr.Matt
joe <wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Since "research in music theory" is no more and no less than studying
>>lots of other music, you seem to have just recommended re-inventing the
>>wheel.
>
>"research in music theory" appears more technical and dry than listening to
>music you like and being inspired by it.
Okay, you make up your idea of what theory is, it's obvious you've never
encountered anything beyond the basics and you don't want to know what
the rest of us are doing.
But to set the record straight, research in music theory is above all
the passionate pursuit of "how did Musician X do that".
> Of course not to say that being
>thus inspired, you leap over all technical aspects of songwriting. There is
>such a thing as too much research, reading too much into a work, being too
>technical, etc.
In other words, you have no idea what research is.
>
>>I'll do my music-making any way I want to, regardless of what Shoulds you
>>attempt to impose upon me, thank you very much.
>
>Well, I have my own ideals. I've been strongly influenced by a band that
>created their own sound, their own expression, all the while in a scene of
>artificial music.
Oh, sure. Yeah. This is the Romantic Ideal, and it's a Great Marketing Ploy.
>Not to say that "music theory" encourages artificial music, there is a need
>for everything. Perhaps music theory serves as a background on which
>all/most important music springs. Perhaps it serves as a sort of
>encyclopedia of facts on which individuals can seek out and be enlightened
>about music.
All that and more. Have you actually listened to my mp3 clips?
>
>>
>>>Music is a mostly emotional phenomena. It is made with the intent to get
>an
>>>emotional response (whatever that may be) from the public.
>>
>>About the only thing you can say across the board about music is NOT
>>that it is done for emotion but that it is done to make a special sound.
>>
>
>And about that special sound, does it not convey something (or mean to
>convey something), whatever that may be, so that the listener will be
>affected? We make music to make sounds, as distinguishable from a drippy
>faucet why?
If I hear a really neat drippy faucet and I call you over to listen to it,
music has happened. What's your problem with that?
>
>>
>>These philosophic issues face people in every field of endeavor.
>>
>>Throwing away all past knowledge and starting from a position of utter
>>ignorance, on the theory that your creations will thus have a more
>>genuine value than those of a more studious individual, is a popular
>>point of view among failed poets, failed philosophers, and crackpot
>>scientists as well as failed musicians. This point of view runs
>>completely counter to the values of civilization, in which ideas
>>accumulate from generation to generation.
>
>I am not suggesting that all music starts from nothing and becomes
>something. I believe in musical history, that music evolves, that different
>types of music have had their place, that music should not merely exist for
>the sake of existing,. I am not at all encouraging an anti-studious
>mentality.
Okay, well, you asked what is music theory and what is its role, and
every time somebody has answered you, you've contradicted them, supplying
a very lousy stereotype as the answer to your own question.
I don't see much point in discussing anything with you again.
Dr.Matt
Paul McCartney was thoroughly steeped in the theory of Music Hall and
Blues, actually.
joe
Dr.Matt wrote in message ...
Have I offended you? It is all too apparent.
joe
Dr.Matt wrote in message ...
>joe <wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>This started 50 years ago.
>>>
>>True, but not in the realm of mainstream music, which I was referring to.
>
>It was the mainstream of classical music. I don't care what you were
>referring to.
>
Of course why should you care what I was referring to, that's what
discussion is all about.
>>>I don't use computers to automate my compositional process, though I
>>>do use computers to assist in the drudgery of music notation. But I
>>>DO constantly make use of 35 years of music-theoretical study (which
>>>has not ceased). May I invite you to visit my web page and listen
>>>to the mp3 clips on it and see whether my music fulfills the promise
>>>of going far beyond the ordinary realm of music made by "theoretical
>>>ignoramuses". The link is below.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, did Beethoven use music theory, or did any popular
>>musicians? I am curious how much of music theory actually enters
mainstream
>>music. (much of which I admit is in very poor quality these days) Of
>>course I am talking about "music theory" as actually being studied, and
not
>>the notion that they were theorizing without even being aware of it.
>
>Almost everybody who you admire studied music--including the theoretic
>materials--extensively. I've heard B B King carry on at great length
>on matters purely theoretical, at a concert of his...
>
I believe they probably had reached a point where they had intimate
knowledge of music composition but that most studied music theory is hard to
believe.
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>Paul McCartney was thoroughly steeped in the theory of Music Hall and
>Blues, actually.
All of them were "steeped" in the music of their parents, from Vera
Lynn to George Formby.
Traditional Jazz (as it's called in England) would be a more accurate
summation of McCartney's upbringing. His father ran a jazz band and
regularly gave him ad hoc instruction. He still plays "When The Saints
Go Marching In" on trumpet. I recently wrote a piece that shows that
the verse of "I Saw Her Standing There" is a faithful replica of the
chords and the melodic shape of "When The Saints Go Marching In".
Think, "so how could I dance, with another, when I saw her standing
there" and "i want to be in that number, when the saints go marching
in". McCartney's preference for swing comes from this source as well.
His blues history is pretty much limited to Little Richard.
Lennon's early instruction is perhaps more intriguing. He spent his
early years singing the choir of one of Liverpool's larger C of E
churchs and also sang in unaccompanied street choirs. His guardian
points out that his enthusiasm led him to attend church two or three
times each Sunday. He was eventually evicted for failing to restrain
himself from adding his own counterpoints. Along with that he played a
piano accordion, right hand only, and harmonica on which he was
described as a "Larry Adler". All largely melodic training which is
probably reflected in particular in his music skills.
McCartney certainly had perfect pitch and it seems Lennon did as well.
Great assets at anytime I guess, but really major when one doesn't
read music.
Ian
joe
>>
>>"research in music theory" appears more technical and dry than listening
to
>>music you like and being inspired by it.
>
>Okay, you make up your idea of what theory is, it's obvious you've never
>encountered anything beyond the basics and you don't want to know what
>the rest of us are doing.
>
Beyond the basics? So Beethoven is basic? The Four Seasons is basic? What
is advanced then? I see your method is to dismiss rather than enlighten
those who disagree with you.
>> Of course not to say that being
>>thus inspired, you leap over all technical aspects of songwriting. There
is
>>such a thing as too much research, reading too much into a work, being too
>>technical, etc.
>
>In other words, you have no idea what research is.
Research? That's figuring out what makes a song tick. Finding out what
makes great songs great.
>
>>
>>>I'll do my music-making any way I want to, regardless of what Shoulds you
>>>attempt to impose upon me, thank you very much.
>>
>>Well, I have my own ideals. I've been strongly influenced by a band that
>>created their own sound, their own expression, all the while in a scene of
>>artificial music.
>
>Oh, sure. Yeah. This is the Romantic Ideal, and it's a Great Marketing
Ploy.
Yes and so is the Great Marketing Ploy that classical music makes people
study better, more intelligent. And FYI the band was heavily criticized and
had barely any publicity at all when they had begun their career.
>
>>Not to say that "music theory" encourages artificial music, there is a
need
>>for everything. Perhaps music theory serves as a background on which
>>all/most important music springs. Perhaps it serves as a sort of
>>encyclopedia of facts on which individuals can seek out and be enlightened
>>about music.
>
>All that and more. Have you actually listened to my mp3 clips?
So tell me, have you been more studious of music theory than, say,
Beethoven? It must be because since that time there have been many new
advancements in music theory. So why do we not have compositions that
compare to the past composers? If you can actually name a few compositions
that are more impressive than Beethoven's works, then please, enlighten me.
>If I hear a really neat drippy faucet and I call you over to listen to it,
>music has happened. What's your problem with that?
Ok so in your book we make music to make sounds. Gotcha. I guess being a
musician is much easier than I had ever imagined.
>>I am not suggesting that all music starts from nothing and becomes
>>something. I believe in musical history, that music evolves, that
different
>>types of music have had their place, that music should not merely exist
for
>>the sake of existing,. I am not at all encouraging an anti-studious
>>mentality.
>
>Okay, well, you asked what is music theory and what is its role, and
>every time somebody has answered you, you've contradicted them, supplying
>a very lousy stereotype as the answer to your own question.
>
>I don't see much point in discussing anything with you again.
Thanks for generously answering so many of my statements. But you've done
more to criticize and ridicule me than enlighten me. If I ask a question,
then am given an answer, should I accept that answer as the truth? Is it
not right to criticize a statement, test for validity, then after a while
conclude that it is after all, the truth?
Josh Dougherty
> to discover his/her own chord/note combinations instead of having
> hypothesized about them through research in music theory.
What you are really preaching is that *information* closes the doors of
possibility.
Let's follow that course shall we?
Then really this songwriter should have never touched an instrument or
listened to music prior to writing his song. If he knows nothing and has
played nothing, then his options are wide open. It's all downhill from
there.
If he's a guitar player, when he learned his first C chord, that chord was
immediately placed into a level of value and importance over that of all
other note combinations. He's supposedly prejudiced towards choosing to use
that C in
his song. The fact that he now knows this chord and can play it means that
this is what he's going to be predisposed to use and it has ruined his
potential for being creative with other chords. He's also placed the note C
in this chord into a position of value over the other notes in this chord by
calling the chord "C" and he's devalued the other notes.
When he then went on and leaned his G chord, this was then placed into a
similar location of value while devaluing all others. When he played these
two chords one after another, this chord combination was immediately
imbedded in his brain and given preference over every other chord
combination and immediately prejudiced everything he would write toward
using this chord combination over everything else.
He then sealed his creativity coffin further by learning his D chord. Now
he's placed this chord into a prejudiced position over every other
combination of notes while devaluing all others. If he then plays this
chord with the other two, he's now prejudiced himself to using those
combinations while devaluing everything else. etc. etc. etc. etc. and each
new step is a further devolvement into creative bondage.
If he had stayed a blank slate he would have all the options on equal
footing and he could make his creative choices without prejudice. Now that
he has learned to play C, G and D, and what these are and how they relate to
each other, this means he's prejudiced to using these chords and he's now
closed his mind to other possibilities. These are valued and everything
else is devalued now.
It would have been considerably more productive and more "respectable" for
this guitarist to have not learned these chords, iow having this information
telling him what to do. He should have just locked
himself in a basement and just started playing random combinations of notes
on his guitar and then he could discover his own chords. If he stumbled
upon a "C" chord, he wouldn't have known it was a C chord so then it would
be "his discovery" and it would be more respectable.
> Someone else
> stated that those people are doing 'music theory' despite being aware of
it.
> But what I think it means to actually be doing 'music theory' is to
approach
> song-writing from a mostly technical viewpoint.
Look, if you're writing a song and you know music theory and you want a
paticular sound, you'll more likely know what it's called, what it is
you're hearing, and how to access it on an instrument. If you don't know
music theory and you want a particular
sound, then you close your eyes and start throwing darts at a board until
you hit the spot you want.
If you think the latter is more "respectable", then I think you are absurd,
but it's your choice to take whatever approach you wish.
> I understand there are
> technical elements to writing a song but I believe this technical aspect
> should only be a means toward an end. Songwriting should start
emotionally,
> with the aim to refine this emotion (however complex it may be) through
use
> of technical means.
Songwriting (or composing, since this term isn't as "limiting" to what I can
write :-)) should be a procedure designed of each person's own aesthetic
choices and concerns, not yours.
Josh
paramucho
wrote:
>>Almost everybody who you admire studied music--including the theoretic
>>materials--extensively. I've heard B B King carry on at great length
>>on matters purely theoretical, at a concert of his...
>>
>
>I believe they probably had reached a point where they had intimate
>knowledge of music composition but that most studied music theory is hard to
>believe.
You are quite correct: many great musicians did not study "theoretic
materials" at all and you are again correct that they acquired an
intimate knowledge of composition without study. Matt often overstates
his case.
While Beethoven certainly did study music (and his library included a
number of theoretical works), much of the language we use to describe
his particular music wasn't available to him at all. Beethoven had
very little respect for "the professors".
Ian
paramucho
wrote:
Personal taste isn't particularly important in these matters.
Ian
Josh Dougherty
> >>limiting in that it only allows certain combinations that "make sense?"
> >
> >combinations that 'make sense'.
>
> In music, the only mode of expression is through the nature of the
> note/chords themselves and the particular combination in which they are
> placed in.
So, rhythm is not a factor? dynamics, timbre, instrumentation...etc. etc.?
> So saying that a certain combination is preferable to another
> combination would persuade you to choose a particular route of expression.
Joe, "music theory" is not a policeman, and it does not tell anyone what *to
do*. It describes what *has been done*.
> But in english, it is not only certain combinations that 'make sense' but
a
> great variety of choice in expression although we are confined by the
rules
> of grammer.
> The rules in this case are THE mode of expression whereas music
> theory describes certain combinations of notes/chords WITHIN THE MODE that
> it deems to have value.
Music theory's job is to describe whatever combinations a person uses.
> Mathematics on the other hand is a PURELY descriptive science and does not
> allow any room for "expression" in the same sense of musical "expression."
> The rules of mathematics is THE mode of expression (purely of facts) of a
> particular phenomena.
Not true. If you're discussing basic arithmetic like 2+2 then that might be
so, but upper level mathematics is very subjective and its' theorists
operate in the realms of possibility and the unknown and construct theories
within these. In this realm there a mathematical "styles" just as there
are musical ones, and they produce differing results and assersions than the
others.
Here is a quote from the book "Emblems of the Mind" by Edward Rothstein. It
compares music and mathematics and examines similarities and differences. I
haven't read the whole thing yet, but it's been pretty interesting so far:
After discussing two procedures in Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry he
writes:
"Understanding these simple examples means beginning to see mathematics as
part of what is commonly called the humanities. This already brings it
closer to music. Far from being a mechanistic system, wound up and ready
to click along, mathematics raises questions of style and taste. A
mathematical proof does not stand in isolation; it answers one question and
points to others. It takes certain things for granted while subjecting
others to scrupulous examination. It is a judgement about importance...."
(end quote)
This is not much different than a lot of music theory in that there isn't
one theory that describes everything, and there is no theory that you have
to adopt
or not adopt when you are playing or composing the music of your choice.
For just one example, take a look at a recent thread here that was called:
"Where's the root: starring Major and Minor
triads". In it, someone listed a progession of chords, and just about
everyone who responded had a slightly different description. The response
was based mainly on how each respondant chose to weigh its' features in
terms of importance, and deciding which things to take for granted and which
to subject to scrupulous examination. The "right" answer is dependant on
these matters of "style", and none of them are necessarily "wrong" or
"right".
Josh
paramucho
wrote:
>Just wondering, how many others have had made similar viewpoints such as my
>own on this newsgroup?
Your viewpoint is quite commonplace, and I think it's based on a
fairly solid intuition. I've been working on an approach to theory for
rock musicians recently which will eventually make its way to my
website www.beathoven.com - perhaps in a month or so. One of the first
things I do is discuss the sort of viewpoint you've presented here:
it's the prevailing rock view.
Which tends to make my endeavor a lost cause, but they're my favorite
kind of causes :-)
Ian
Josh Dougherty
>
> David Webber wrote in message
> <1012070518.7554.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >Music theory does not "allow" or "forbid" things - it describes them in a
> >consistent framework.
>
Joe, music theory doesn't tell anyone what *to do*. It describes what *has
been done*. If your goal is to re-create what has been done, then music
theory *can* try to present a set of "rules" that may most efficiently
achieve that goal by excluding features that don't appear in that
pre-existing style, but this has nothhing to do with telling you what you
can or can not do with your own music and muse in the present.
> In that sense it doesn't only describe but places value on some chord/note
> combinations while devaluing others.
There is no universal "value" on any chord combination that I know of. The
"value" of a chord combination is determined by the musician in the process
of creation and what that person decides is important for that piece of
music at that given instance.
If music theory is attempting to describe a pre-existing style then it might
place the chords in a heirarchy of "value" in accordance with what that
pre-existing style *did*. It describes the relationship and how it operates
in some rational manner. This does not tell you what you must do when
creating new music. The information gained from studying that style may
allow you to know that you want to follow its' patterns when that
sound/style is what you want in your music in that instance, or equally it
might allow you to know that you want to avoid those patterns when they're
not what you want in your music in that instance.
> What is the role of music theory? Is it to help compose music?
It can be, yes.
> What about the emotions associated with chord/note combinations? Does the
theory go
> into that realm?
It can go wherever the theorist wants to go with it and whatever he or she
wishes to examine. Music theory, is basically just the study of the
building blocks of music, in any way. Some people associate certain
emotional responses with certain modes for instance.
> >Just because you don't know what a "Neapolitan 6th" is, doesn't mean you
are
> >not using theory. But I suspect that the composers of more
sophisticated
> >popular music learn more as they go along than some others. If you trace
> >the Beatles output over 10 years or so, there is an immense change from
very
> >simple songs to much more complex ones; I'm sure lennon and McCartney
> >learned a lot of theory as they went along.
>
> So basically even before they wrote their complex songs, the value of the
> chord combinations in those complex songs were already well documented in
> music theory?
The combination was most likely already explained by music theory in some
form or another, because the combination had already occured somewhere else
and been described then. I don't know what you mean by "value", as if music
theory pre-determines that one combination is "valuable" and another isn't
for someone's as yet unwritten or unperformed music. It doesn't.
Look, you seem to have a misconception of music theory that is typically
only held by those unfamiliar with it. The assumption is that music theory
is a policeman laying down a set of rules that tells you what you can play
or write, and can not
play or write in any given instance. It's not. Period. Any chord can
precede or follow any other chord. Any note can preceed or follow any other
note. Any note can be used with any chord. etc. etc. When these choices
have been made, it's theory's job to analyze the relationship and describe
it in some rational manner.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
news:3c54759d...@news2.ozemail.com.au...
> While Beethoven certainly did study music (and his library included a
> number of theoretical works), much of the language we use to describe
> his particular music wasn't available to him at all.
This is excellent proof that the study of theory does not tell you what you
can or can't write.
Josh
joe
Josh Dougherty wrote in message <3c53...@MAIL.mhogaming.com>...
>"joe" <wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2PF48.10274$tg4.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>> It seems more natural songwriting (and more respectable) for an
individual
>> to discover his/her own chord/note combinations instead of having
>> hypothesized about them through research in music theory.
>
>What you are really preaching is that *information* closes the doors of
>possibility.
>Let's follow that course shall we?
Lets not make assumptions shall we?
>
>Then really this songwriter should have never touched an instrument or
>listened to music prior to writing his song. If he knows nothing and has
>played nothing, then his options are wide open. It's all downhill from
>there.
Is picking up a musical instrument or listening to music the same as
studying music theory? I is apparent that those who had very little
exposure to music will have fewer options available to him/her in writing
his/her own songs. But does being "exposed" to music equate to being
"exposed" to music theory? Well it seems that way in your definition of
music theory, this all pervating presence. But really, I'm talking about a
scholastic approach to songwriting via music theory.
You started off saying that the individual learns some chords (good thing)
eventually learning that some combination sounds better than others (good
thing) to the exclusion of others (bad thing) then suggest the possibility
that the individual remained a blank slate. (bad thing)
Learning chords is a big help, especially to the beginner, but even chords
have their pros and cons. It is not necessarily an improvement. First of
all there are many ways of playing the guitar. The manner typical in
popular music is chord based, usually very simplistic, some repeated pattern
over and over again. But once a chord based style is introduced, it may be
depended upon solely for musical expression (abused) or it may be utilized
in places where it is appropriate. Chord-playing is sometimes much easier
than playing the individual notes. As such, it is typically the route that
most guitar players take. But many too have realized the possibilities of
varied expression via melodic single-note playing. Of course this does not
mean we should not introduce them to chords, but that the chords should be
perceived not as a definite "pro" but, like any style, something that is to
be utilized and which may potentially be abused.
What I mean by self-discovery in music is not the rediscovery of chords,
which is of very minor significance, but *with* the knowledge of chords, the
discovery of complex harmonies in chord combinations.
>
>> Someone else
>> stated that those people are doing 'music theory' despite being aware of
>it.
>> But what I think it means to actually be doing 'music theory' is to
>approach
>> song-writing from a mostly technical viewpoint.
>
>Look, if you're writing a song and you know music theory and you want a
>paticular sound, you'll more likely know what it's called,
Doesn't music theory go beyond finding that particular sound?
what it is
>you're hearing, and how to access it on an instrument. If you don't know
>music theory and you want a particular
>sound, then you close your eyes and start throwing darts at a board until
>you hit the spot you want.
The sound itself is not the issue, it is the association, the relationships
between numerous chords that is the issue.
>
>If you think the latter is more "respectable", then I think you are absurd,
>but it's your choice to take whatever approach you wish.
>
>> I understand there are
>> technical elements to writing a song but I believe this technical aspect
>> should only be a means toward an end. Songwriting should start
>emotionally,
>> with the aim to refine this emotion (however complex it may be) through
>use
>> of technical means.
>
>Songwriting (or composing, since this term isn't as "limiting" to what I
can
>write :-)) should be a procedure designed of each person's own aesthetic
>choices and concerns, not yours.
Obviously.
>
>Josh
>
>
Josh Dougherty
Urghh.. You already did an ok job explaining the misconception produced by
this phenomenon, but ok...here goes.
When this is the case, it has nothing to do with what you can or can not do
when creating music in the present.
Exercises or studies in pre-existing styles can use rules to allow a student
to zero in on a specific feature of the pre-existing style, and exclude the
ones irrelevant to the exercise at that given time. They can also use rules
to zero in a specific concept, while excluding irrelevant features to that
concept at that given time. So, now you've gotten a concept under your belt
without having to deal with a bottomless well of musical possibilities all
at the same time. Great. Now when you go to create music you're no longer
doing an
exercise, but rather are back in the realm of the bottomless well of musical
possibilities and you can use
the knowledge gained from that concept if you so choose to either follow or
avoid its' results or anything in between.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with telling a musician what they can or
can not do in their own musical endeavors.
The other possibility, as you discussed already, is books designed for
children or lesser-motivated musicians that just want to be told what to do
right off and not engage in an actual study of music theory.
Aside from that, I've never encountered any "rule", and certainly none
that music theory has forced upon me to follow when composing or
improvising.
Anyone who studies music theory at any length realizes the truth, that music
theory is not a policeman that tells you what you can or can not do. That
is the misconception of many that have either never studied music theory, or
only delved in far enough to fullfil their misconception, which is having
someone tell them what to do.
It is the study of music that allows you to inform your own choices of what
to do or not do
with a stronger foundation of knowledge, not a policeman. Your taste is the
only policeman.
Josh
joe
because of a certain musician I admire who emphasized the creative over the
technical. Subsequent posts on this thread will refer to clarification
only. I stand corrected.
Josh Dougherty wrote in message <3c53...@MAIL.mhogaming.com>...
Mike Puterbaugh
> Beyond the basics? So Beethoven is basic? The Four Seasons is
> basic? What is advanced then?
We're talking the basics of music theory, not "basic music".
A curriculum which aims to systematically expose a student to the world
of music theory has to start SOMEWHERE. Typically this starting point
is to look at what a handful of composers were writing in the 18th
century.
If someone were to only participate in the first part of such a
curriculum, they might get the idea that all music theory does it give
you a list of rules to follow so you can write music that sounds like a
watered-down version of Haydn or Mozart. This is not true.
> And FYI the band was heavily criticized and had barely any publicity
> at all when they had begun their career.
I don't see why this makes their music any more valid, or the methods
by which they came to compose their music any more valid.
(Not that I think those methods are 'invalid' either. If good music
comes of it, I don't care what path an artists takes to get there.)
> So tell me, have you been more studious of music theory than, say,
> Beethoven? It must be because since that time there have been
> many new advancements in music theory. So why do we not have
> compositions that compare to the past composers?
We do. Thousands of them.
> If you can actually name a few compositions that are more impressive
> than Beethoven's works, then please, enlighten me.
Who are we supposed to be trying to impress? You?
Why are Beethoven's works so impressive in the first place? Some
people who are impressed choose to analyze the scores to figure out how
it works, hoping that will explain why they like it so much. That is
music theory.
>>If I hear a really neat drippy faucet and I call you over to
>>listen to it, music has happened. What's your problem with that?
>
> Ok so in your book we make music to make sounds. Gotcha. I guess
> being a musician is much easier than I had ever imagined.
The important part is that those sounds be "really neat".
> If I ask a question, then am given an answer, should I accept that
> answer as the truth? Is it not right to criticize a statement,
> test for validity, then after a while conclude that it is after
> all, the truth?
You can do what you want. But since the regulars here have spent many
years more than you finding answers to the questions you're asking, I
would hope that you would grant their answers at least some validity.
-Mike
Josh Dougherty
>
> Josh Dougherty wrote in message <3c53...@MAIL.mhogaming.com>...
> >"joe" <wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2PF48.10274$tg4.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> >> It seems more natural songwriting (and more respectable) for an
individual
> >> to discover his/her own chord/note combinations instead of having
> >> hypothesized about them through research in music theory.
> >
> >What you are really preaching is that *information* closes the doors of
> >possibility.
> >Let's follow that course shall we?
>
> Lets not make assumptions shall we?
I don't see it as an assumption. I see it as describing your assersion.
Then I chose to take your position to its' logical conclusion by using
another example. You are claiming that information closes the doors of
possibility while ignorance is freedom in terms of music theory.
> >Then really this songwriter should have never touched an instrument or
> >listened to music prior to writing his song. If he knows nothing and has
> >played nothing, then his options are wide open. It's all downhill from
> >there.
>
> Is picking up a musical instrument or listening to music the same as
> studying music theory?
Picking up a musical instrument and learning to play any existing structure
such as a "C chord" is the first step into the realm of music theory.
Listening to music could be abstractly related to music theory, but I'll let
someone else take on that job. :)
What it does do though, is embed certain sounds and relationships into your
conscious and subconscious while leaving out all the rest (everything you
haven't listened to yet). It is your same argument with music theory. What
you have listened to will supposedly prejudice you to create music that way,
to the exclusion of other possibilites. I'd say that can be true, but it's
also true the opposite way. If you've listened to something that you do not
want to emulate in your own music, then you also will have a tendency to
avoid things that sound like that music you've listened to. And with
listening, as with music theory, you choose what styles and sounds you want
to listen to or study.
> I is apparent that those who had very little
> exposure to music will have fewer options available to him/her in writing
> his/her own songs. But does being "exposed" to music equate to being
> "exposed" to music theory?
They are very similar in the way of exposure/options yes. In that less
exposure to the possibilities of chord relationships or anything else will
probably result in a more limited pallete and fewer options. It is quite
common for it too seem like lots more options to the uninformed because they
of course do not see all the possibilities they haven't been exposed to.
It's like the old saying: the more you learn, the more you realize how
little you know.
> Well it seems that way in your definition of
> music theory, this all pervating presence. But really, I'm talking about
a
> scholastic approach to songwriting via music theory.
I'm not sure what the "scholastic approach" is. If someone knows music
theory and chooses to use C-F6-G7, and someone that doesn't chooses to use
C-F6-G7. What's the difference? You seem to be arguing over somebody's
chosen method rather than the result. If you're just saying that you like
more simple music and it shouldn't use anything that you perceive as
"technical", then so be it. Don't listen to music that you think is
technical.
If you are claiming that music theory results in "stiff" or "emotionless"
sounding music or whatever, then I'd say you're wrong. Listen to John
Coltrane sometime.
If you just don't like anything that sounds "complicated" or "technical"
then so be it. Don't listen. If you think that anything "technical" or
"complicated" is automatically "stiff" and "emotionless", then that's too
bad. I don't agree with that, but so what. Don't listen.
If you think music theory results in "technical" or "complicated" music,
then I'd say that sometimes yes, but not necessarily. The reason, I'd think
that might be so is that the people that are drawn to music theory more than
others probably have a tendency toward appreciating things that are a little
more complex and the theory helps them discover and use more complex
relationships in their music. Other people study music theory and like
simple music and use the elements of music theory to inform their decisions
in writing simpler relationships.
No, this would be a *bad* thing because now he has one chord placed in a
position of "value" more important than all the others he hasn't learned.
> eventually learning that some combination sounds better than others (good
thing)
No. First I didn't say that he learned that "some sound better than
others". I just said that he learned some combinations. This again is a
*bad* thing because now he has these combinations placed as more important
than all the others he has yet to learn.
> to the exclusion of others (bad thing) then suggest the possibility
> that the individual remained a blank slate. (bad thing)
No. That would be a *good* thing because then information has not
prejudiced his creativity into choosing those chords and combinations while
devaluing others.
> Learning chords is a big help, especially to the beginner,
No. Each chord they learn serves to prejudice them to using these chords
and makes them seem valuable while devaluing all the others that they
haven't learned.
> but even chords have their pros and cons. It is not necessarily an
improvement. First of
> all there are many ways of playing the guitar. The manner typical in
> popular music is chord based, usually very simplistic, some repeated
pattern
> over and over again. But once a chord based style is introduced, it may
be
> depended upon solely for musical expression (abused) or it may be utilized
> in places where it is appropriate. Chord-playing is sometimes much easier
> than playing the individual notes. As such, it is typically the route
that
> most guitar players take. But many too have realized the possibilities of
> varied expression via melodic single-note playing. Of course this does
not
> mean we should not introduce them to chords, but that the chords should be
> perceived not as a definite "pro" but, like any style, something that is
to
> be utilized and which may potentially be abused.
Try applying this same type of logic to any aspect of "music theory". That
would give you a better outlook on it IMO.
Here's your paragraph again, this time related to music theory:
but even the principles of music theory have their pros and cons. It is not
necessarily an improvement. First of
all there are many ways of approaching music theory. One typical concept in
music theory
is to assume a "key" and associate certain specific chords to that key. But
once this theory is introduced, it may be
depended upon solely for musical expression (abused) and assumed that other
chords are less "valuable" and aren't supposed to be there, or it may be
utilized
in places where it is appropriate. Using this theory alone is sometimes
much easier
than exploring the wide array of possibilities. As such, it is typically
the route that
many novices to music theory take. But many too have realized the
possibilities of
varied expression via many other concepts in music thoery. Of course this
does not
mean we should not introduce them to music thoery, but that each theory
should be
perceived not as a definite "pro" but, like any style, something that is to
be utilized and which may potentially be abused.
There you go. :)
> What I mean by self-discovery in music is not the rediscovery of chords,
> which is of very minor significance, but *with* the knowledge of chords,
the
> discovery of complex harmonies in chord combinations.
??? You can take this journey with or without theory. It's only seems like
common sense to me that using the information available will make this
journey go smoother and faster.
> >> Someone else
> >> stated that those people are doing 'music theory' despite being aware
of it.
> >> But what I think it means to actually be doing 'music theory' is to
approach
> >> song-writing from a mostly technical viewpoint.
> >
> >Look, if you're writing a song and you know music theory and you want a
> >paticular sound, you'll more likely know what it's called,
>
> Doesn't music theory go beyond finding that particular sound?
Sure. It can go in any direction you wish to explore. If you think it goes
in the direction of telling you what your own music has to do by telling you
to write or play one thing and not another. No. Those choices are yours.
> what it is
> >you're hearing, and how to access it on an instrument. If you don't know
> >music theory and you want a particular
> >sound, then you close your eyes and start throwing darts at a board until
> >you hit the spot you want.
>
> The sound itself is not the issue, it is the association, the
relationships
> between numerous chords that is the issue.
Ok, so what about it? It's the job of music theory to attempt to describe
and account for any combination anyone uses. The fact that music theory on
the whole might spend more time describing G7-C rather than some other more
exotic relationship is just a result of the fact that people have used it
more than some other exotic relationship. This is the same as with
listening to music, or with what chords or scales everyone typically learns
first. If you listen to music you're likely going to hear this relationship
more often than many other relationships, and if you think that's going to
force you to use it, then it would also do so with studying it. I disagree
though. I think hearing it or studying it could just as easily lead you to
choose to avoid it, *as long as you can access other options and are not
operating under the misconception that there are universal rules to creating
music. Or, you can choose to listen to other kinds of music that don't
really use it if you find that you don't like the sound, and you can also
choose to study areas of music theory that cover other different
relationships. It's still your choice.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
> McCartney certainly had perfect pitch and it seems Lennon did as well.
> Great assets at anytime I guess, but really major when one doesn't
> read music.
Where does it say that either of them had perfect pitch?
Josh
paramucho
McCartney says so in his book MANY YEARS FROM NOW. Somewhere.
Martin also has perfect pitch.
With Lennon it's not as clear, which is why I said "seems". In an
interview he did in 1980 he sang about a dozen musical quotes: each
was perfectly pitched to the original.
Ian
joe
>If someone were to only participate in the first part of such a
>curriculum, they might get the idea that all music theory does it give
>you a list of rules to follow so you can write music that sounds like a
>watered-down version of Haydn or Mozart. This is not true.
I am interested in learning some music theory for the guitar. It appears
that music theory goes more in depth in music composed by piano or a
orchestra. Can you give me a demonstration of some music theory on the
guitar?
>
>> And FYI the band was heavily criticized and had barely any publicity
>> at all when they had begun their career.
>
>I don't see why this makes their music any more valid, or the methods
>by which they came to compose their music any more valid.
Well stated in such a fashion one is likely to state such a band as being
"lucky." But I have no way to show you the "validness" of their music
unless you experience it firsthand.
>
>(Not that I think those methods are 'invalid' either. If good music
>comes of it, I don't care what path an artists takes to get there.)
>
>> So tell me, have you been more studious of music theory than, say,
>> Beethoven? It must be because since that time there have been
>> many new advancements in music theory. So why do we not have
>> compositions that compare to the past composers?
>
>We do. Thousands of them.
Ok, I would like to hear these pieces. I have been impressed by many of
Beethoven's works and would like to know others that are comparable.
>Why are Beethoven's works so impressive in the first place? Some
>people who are impressed choose to analyze the scores to figure out how
>it works, hoping that will explain why they like it so much. That is
>music theory.
So what were the findings?
>
>> If I ask a question, then am given an answer, should I accept that
>> answer as the truth? Is it not right to criticize a statement,
>> test for validity, then after a while conclude that it is after
>> all, the truth?
>
>You can do what you want. But since the regulars here have spent many
>years more than you finding answers to the questions you're asking, I
>would hope that you would grant their answers at least some validity.
I don't think they were asking the same questions, if they were why would
they even be scholars of music theory? It's the same as a doctor asking
what the significance of his profession is.
>
>-Mike
Joey Goldstein
joe wrote:
>
> >
> >It sounds like your mind is already made up so why are you even
> >bothering to ask the question?
>
> I'm not anti- music theory,
Gimmee a break, of course you are.
> it just feels somewhat artificial to me.
I agree that a little theory can be a bad thing. IMO most rock musicians
who have had their intuitive powers clipped a bit by studying music
theory or by lesrning how to read music have simply quit too soon. The
simplest things in a beginner harmony course do not really explain very
well some of the very simple sounding harmonic devices of everyday
music. If you persevere with the study most musical things that you will
encounter can be understood much clearer though.
Is it the study of classical harmony that you object to? Jazz harmony?
Harmony period? Counterpoint? Acoustics? The overtone series?
Aesthetics? Alternate tunings for the guitar? Power chords in rock? The
blues scale? Digital signal processing in FX pedals? Chord progressions
preferred by the Sex Pistols? What? The area of covered by "music
theory" is pretty vast y'know.
Anytine you engage in thought about why or how something musical has
been made to happen you are engaging in a form of music theory whether
you know it and choose to call it that or not.
> The
> future of music composition may well lie in computer programs which might be
> able to produce work much more impressive than anything written by humans.
So what? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Bad for who? The listener?
If there are no listeners being impressed then who is being impressed?
Music is primarily for listeners but the experience of listening to
music is many many times greater when one human is intimately involved
in the projection of the music in real time to another human. So in
computer music the listening experience will most often not be as rich,
although someday I hope a computer music genius composer comes along and
proves me wrong. The only people really suffering with computer music
are the players. In computer generated music the programmer is
essentially the composer. Until computers start writing their own
programs that is.
> That's where I see music theory eventually being applied to.
All the music theory that is required for what you propose is already
available, available to humans. What is not available is a computer
program sophisticated enough to make aesthetic judgements as to what
humans will want to hear.
> It might be in
> the future that the programmers of automated music composers will be as
> highly regarded as Beethoven was in his time.
So? What's your point?
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Joey Goldstein
joe wrote:
>
> "research in music theory" appears more technical and dry than listening to
> music you like and being inspired by it.
Studying music IS more technical and dry than merely listening to it.
When you study music you listen to it much more closely and are looking
for details that a casual listening will surely miss.
> Of course not to say that being
> thus inspired, you leap over all technical aspects of songwriting.
The study of the technical aspects of songwriting IS the theory of songwriting.
> There is
> such a thing as too much research, reading too much into a work, being too
> technical, etc.
Only with a coposer who is insensitive with his materials.
> >I'll do my music-making any way I want to, regardless of what Shoulds you
> >attempt to impose upon me, thank you very much.
>
> Well, I have my own ideals. I've been strongly influenced by a band that
> created their own sound, their own expression, all the while in a scene of
> artificial music.
Which band?
> Not to say that "music theory" encourages artificial music, there is a need
> for everything. Perhaps music theory serves as a background on which
> all/most important music springs.
The above sentence is nonsense. Music theory is simply the study of
music. If you don't buy into the theories that are out there then come
up with your own. Music theory attempts to explain something that can
not be explained, music. But still something is gleaned in the attempt
or nobody would do it. Inspiration, IMO, can not really be studied or
taught. A student who looks to a teacher or a theory for inspiration is
looking in the wrong place. Ideas maybe, inspiration no.
> Perhaps it serves as a sort of
> encyclopedia of facts on which individuals can seek out and be enlightened
> about music.
You'll never know what it is or what it does unless you start studying
it now will you?
> >>Music is a mostly emotional phenomena. It is made with the intent to get
> an
> >>emotional response (whatever that may be) from the public.
> >
> >About the only thing you can say across the board about music is NOT
> >that it is done for emotion but that it is done to make a special sound.
> >
>
> And about that special sound, does it not convey something (or mean to
> convey something), whatever that may be, so that the listener will be
> affected? We make music to make sounds, as distinguishable from a drippy
> faucet why?
A drippy faucet can be incredibly meaningful and the sound of a dripping
faucet could easily be used in a musical work to great effect by a great composer.
Music is something that musicians think sounds wonderful and that they
think expresses something important about their lives and that they
think they would like to share with other people.
paramucho
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>joe wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >It sounds like your mind is already made up so why are you even
>> >bothering to ask the question?
>>
>> I'm not anti- music theory,
>
>Gimmee a break, of course you are.
Skepticism is a very healthy trait in a novice.
Ian
joe
>>
>> Lets not make assumptions shall we?
>
>I don't see it as an assumption. I see it as describing your assersion.
>Then I chose to take your position to its' logical conclusion by using
>another example. You are claiming that information closes the doors of
>possibility while ignorance is freedom in terms of music theory.
I think you still don't understand what you're arguing against. What you
describe there, how can anyone support that idea? You've altered my
argument quite a bit in order to bolster your own counter-argument and in
the process have lost the whole point of the discussion. It's called
exaggeration and generalization.
Let me give you an example of limiting information. We actually experience
it firsthand. Many people watch the news but they do not realize that
American media is very ignorant of thousands of important issues in the
world. Though an individual may watch the news believing that he is being
informed, he is in fact being misinformed by being isolated from real
issues.
>
>> >Then really this songwriter should have never touched an instrument or
>> >listened to music prior to writing his song. If he knows nothing and
has
>> >played nothing, then his options are wide open. It's all downhill from
>> >there.
>>
>> Is picking up a musical instrument or listening to music the same as
>> studying music theory?
>
>Picking up a musical instrument and learning to play any existing structure
>such as a "C chord" is the first step into the realm of music theory.
>
Need for clarification, would you call an individual who knows some chords,
then goes on to play around with these chords, altering them a bit,
experimenting, being inspired by and utilizing music that he was exposed to,
and another individual who actually takes *courses* in music theory to be
both "scholars of musical theory?"
For some reason you have chosen to have music theory consist of everything
that consists of chords, notes, use of notes and chords in combination, etc
etc. Of course that's not what I'm arguing against.
>Listening to music could be abstractly related to music theory, but I'll
let
>someone else take on that job. :)
Abstractly related to music theory? No please, elaborate, too hard to
explain yourself?
>What it does do though, is embed certain sounds and relationships into your
>conscious and subconscious while leaving out all the rest (everything you
>haven't listened to yet). It is your same argument with music theory.
What
>you have listened to will supposedly prejudice you to create music that
way,
>to the exclusion of other possibilites.
Not so, in fact quite the opposite. Some renowned musicians have had their
"song" that inspired them to cultivate their own style. It wasn't the
*patterns* in the song that prejudiced them into becoming a mere clone, but
it was the complexity, the wide range in expression, the innovation in the
song that motivated them to become pioneers themselves. These I would say
the more respectable musicians in my book. But there are others who merely
become clones, or possibly even improve on their particular genre.
I'd say that can be true, but it's
>also true the opposite way. If you've listened to something that you do
not
>want to emulate in your own music, then you also will have a tendency to
>avoid things that sound like that music you've listened to. And with
>listening, as with music theory, you choose what styles and sounds you want
>to listen to or study.
You miss the whole point of my argument.
>
>> I is apparent that those who had very little
>> exposure to music will have fewer options available to him/her in writing
>> his/her own songs. But does being "exposed" to music equate to being
>> "exposed" to music theory?
>
>They are very similar in the way of exposure/options yes.
I still think you need to define "music theory" since you have applied this
to everything from listening to music, making music, playing chords, etc
etc..
I see a fundamental difference. Music theory is grounded in academia
whereas you can be exposed to music from vast range of sources, the radio,
an outside festival, a mother's lullaby,.. So if one individual listens to
dance music all year round, and another actively researches in music theory,
they both end up being *equally* musically inclined?
In that less
>exposure to the possibilities of chord relationships or anything else will
>probably result in a more limited pallete and fewer options. It is quite
>common for it too seem like lots more options to the uninformed because
they
>of course do not see all the possibilities they haven't been exposed to.
>It's like the old saying: the more you learn, the more you realize how
>little you know.
>
>> Well it seems that way in your definition of
>> music theory, this all pervating presence. But really, I'm talking about
>a
>> scholastic approach to songwriting via music theory.
>
>I'm not sure what the "scholastic approach" is. If someone knows music
>theory and chooses to use C-F6-G7, and someone that doesn't chooses to use
>C-F6-G7. What's the difference?
I think you're missing a big part of what it means to write music. The
actual written notes are the same, but the context in which they are used,
the way they are utilized to express something, are so often unique that one
can't really say they are literally the same.
>chosen method rather than the result. If you're just saying that you like
>more simple music and it shouldn't use anything that you perceive as
>"technical", then so be it. Don't listen to music that you think is
>technical.
*All* music has a technical aspect. What I am referring to is the technical
aspect of composing music.
>
>If you are claiming that music theory results in "stiff" or "emotionless"
>sounding music or whatever, then I'd say you're wrong. Listen to John
>Coltrane sometime.
Of course it can't be emotionless, I don't think it's even possible to
create an emotionless piece. What I am referring to as "stiff" or
"emotionless" is not the end product but the actual writing process. The
end product may very well be emotional, but the manner in which it was
produced was based on the technical vantage point.
>
>If you just don't like anything that sounds "complicated" or "technical"
>then so be it. Don't listen. If you think that anything "technical" or
>"complicated" is automatically "stiff" and "emotionless", then that's too
>bad. I don't agree with that, but so what. Don't listen.
>
I am not at all against complexity. I have no idea where you got that. In
fact, I am often bored by simplistic patterns repeated over and over again
in pop music. Complexity is a sign of higher expression.
>If you think music theory results in "technical" or "complicated" music,
Once again you place my term "technical" which I meant for the actual
writing process and place it into the end product.
>then I'd say that sometimes yes, but not necessarily. The reason, I'd
think
>that might be so is that the people that are drawn to music theory more
than
>others probably have a tendency toward appreciating things that are a
little
>more complex and the theory helps them discover and use more complex
>relationships in their music. Other people study music theory and like
>simple music and use the elements of music theory to inform their decisions
>in writing simpler relationships.
Well let me ask you this, does greater complexity equate to better music?
>> You started off saying that the individual learns some chords (good
thing)
>
>No, this would be a *bad* thing because now he has one chord placed in a
>position of "value" more important than all the others he hasn't learned.
>
You seem to be confused and seem to be speaking for me. When I say "good
thing" that is what I'm actually thinking.
>> eventually learning that some combination sounds better than others (good
>thing)
>
>No. First I didn't say that he learned that "some sound better than
>others". I just said that he learned some combinations.
No you said that he focuses on these combinations and plays them to the
exclusion of other chord combinations.
This again is a
>*bad* thing because now he has these combinations placed as more important
>than all the others he has yet to learn.
Well please clarify when you are speaking for me and when you are speaking
for yourself. I actually see this as a good thing.
>
>> to the exclusion of others (bad thing) then suggest the possibility
>> that the individual remained a blank slate. (bad thing)
>
>No. That would be a *good* thing because then information has not
>prejudiced his creativity into choosing those chords and combinations while
>devaluing others.
Ok since you equate learning a few chords to learning music theory, I guess
we can do away with all the other premises of music theory. Just teach
prospective musicians a few chords and there you go, they know as much music
theory as they will ever need. That's what I've been saying the whole time.
Chords are good, the other stuff, questionable.
>
>> Learning chords is a big help, especially to the beginner,
>
>No. Each chord they learn serves to prejudice them to using these chords
>and makes them seem valuable while devaluing all the others that they
>haven't learned.
>
Um right, has this roleplay been insightful? Neither you or I want this so
who are you speaking for?
And there you go, I have been pointing this the whole time. The fact that
even though it may help, it can also limit your creativity.
>
>> What I mean by self-discovery in music is not the rediscovery of chords,
>> which is of very minor significance, but *with* the knowledge of chords,
>the
>> discovery of complex harmonies in chord combinations.
>
>??? You can take this journey with or without theory. It's only seems
like
>common sense to me that using the information available will make this
>journey go smoother and faster.
Yes but would you want to take the path that many have taken or go in your
own path pioneering a new musical style and truly applying your creativity?
I think before you respond you should try to understand where I'm coming
from and exactly what my argument is. You've written so much addressing
something other than my argument.
>
>Josh
>
>
joe
Joey Goldstein wrote in message <3C53AD20...@nowhere.net>...
>
>
>joe wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >It sounds like your mind is already made up so why are you even
>> >bothering to ask the question?
>>
>> I'm not anti- music theory,
>
>Gimmee a break, of course you are.
Well it seems you've already made up your mind about my being anti-music
theory. =)
Getting defensive are we?
>
>> it just feels somewhat artificial to me.
>
>I agree that a little theory can be a bad thing. IMO most rock musicians
>who have had their intuitive powers clipped a bit by studying music
>theory or by lesrning how to read music have simply quit too soon.
Who are these rock musicians most of whom start their careers by studying
music theory? Not the ones that I know of.
The
>simplest things in a beginner harmony course do not really explain very
>well some of the very simple sounding harmonic devices of everyday
>music. If you persevere with the study most musical things that you will
>encounter can be understood much clearer though.
>
>Is it the study of classical harmony that you object to? Jazz harmony?
>Harmony period? Counterpoint? Acoustics? The overtone series?
>Aesthetics? Alternate tunings for the guitar? Power chords in rock? The
>blues scale? Digital signal processing in FX pedals? Chord progressions
>preferred by the Sex Pistols? What? The area of covered by "music
>theory" is pretty vast y'know.
Seems that way. I've already expressed my viewpoints, and have admitted I
was wrong on some points. The fact is, music theory has its pros and cons.
It *can* be limiting but it can also be enlightening. It's a mixed bag of
sorts.
>
>Anytine you engage in thought about why or how something musical has
>been made to happen you are engaging in a form of music theory whether
>you know it and choose to call it that or not.
>
You'd very much like that to be true but music theory approaches music from
the technical vantage point to the end product being emotional response,
whereas there is also the musician that is looking for that certain sound,
in which case he already has a preconceived notion of the type of sound he
is looking for.
>> The
>> future of music composition may well lie in computer programs which might
be
>> able to produce work much more impressive than anything written by
humans.
>
>So what? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Bad for who? The listener?
>If there are no listeners being impressed then who is being impressed?
>Music is primarily for listeners but the experience of listening to
>music is many many times greater when one human is intimately involved
>in the projection of the music in real time to another human. So in
>computer music the listening experience will most often not be as rich,
>although someday I hope a computer music genius composer comes along and
>proves me wrong. The only people really suffering with computer music
>are the players. In computer generated music the programmer is
>essentially the composer. Until computers start writing their own
>programs that is.
>
So you see nothing wrong with music compositions made by unfeeling robots?
How about one day if computerized vocals are added in, so that we have
completely automated bands that make no sacrifice whatsoever, the members of
which have nothing in common with us, yet sing about "the human condition?"
>> That's where I see music theory eventually being applied to.
>
>All the music theory that is required for what you propose is already
>available, available to humans. What is not available is a computer
>program sophisticated enough to make aesthetic judgements as to what
>humans will want to hear.
Well I was aware of that, the sentence I wrote would suggest otherwise.
>
>> It might be in
>> the future that the programmers of automated music composers will be as
>> highly regarded as Beethoven was in his time.
>
>So? What's your point?
Then the computer would become famous, after having written many renowned
pieces will eventually retire in leisure at a french villa where he reflect
on his existence and influence.
joe
>> Well, I have my own ideals. I've been strongly influenced by a band that
>> created their own sound, their own expression, all the while in a scene
of
>> artificial music.
>
>Which band?
Rather not say.
>> Perhaps it serves as a sort of
>> encyclopedia of facts on which individuals can seek out and be
enlightened
>> about music.
>
>You'll never know what it is or what it does unless you start studying
>it now will you?
I've had some experience. I've learned about chord theory in guitar.
>> And about that special sound, does it not convey something (or mean to
>> convey something), whatever that may be, so that the listener will be
>> affected? We make music to make sounds, as distinguishable from a drippy
>> faucet why?
>
>A drippy faucet can be incredibly meaningful and the sound of a dripping
>faucet could easily be used in a musical work to great effect by a great
composer.
Yes but in that case you place the originally ascetically meaningless sound
of the dripping faucet in the context of a musical composition thus giving
it significance. But does this mean that "music" is the same as all other
sounds? No.
>
>Music is something that musicians think sounds wonderful and that they
>think expresses something important about their lives and that they
>think they would like to share with other people.
I agree.
paramucho
wrote:
>I think before you respond you should try to understand where I'm coming
>from and exactly what my argument is. You've written so much addressing
>something other than my argument.
Nothing against Josh, but I think you have all the attributes a good
student of music: skepticism, curiosity and a quick, perceptive mind.
Matt, Joey and Josh are probably more aggressive in their replies than
they are aware of. It has to do with the atmosphere in this newsgroup
which is often negatively charged. Over a period of year that kind of
atmosphere takes its toll and habits form.
I imagine that some of your prejudices against music theory have only
been confirmed by your reception here. RedNeon (sp?) faced the same
"sympathetic" hearing last week. I don't know why they're so touchy --
but I have noticed that the word "rock" raises some shackles pretty
quickly around here with some. Me, I'm used to skepticism in the rock
community regarding theory.
"Music Theory" is a bit of a misnomer. There is in fact no single,
complete "theory". It's probably more accurate to speak of a
"theoretical approach" to music which means nothing more than studying
music. Perhaps another missunderstanding is the "goal". Some people
coming to musical theory are looking for a system that explains the
musical world. Most peole I know who engage in musical theory don't
have that as a goal at all. They just like thinking about issues in
music. It's one of those things where the more you learn, the less you
really know.
There are no pat answers and there is no suitable text available that
I know of for enquiring rock musicians. The better books on harmony
concentrate on classical music. There are a number of good sites on
jazz on the web -- Joey's is one of the better ones and is very
thorough. Beyond that there are dozens rather glib reductions of the
material on the web, and in music stores, that try to make a complex
subject look like fast food. That's okay for picking up the basics,
but most musicians already know those anyway.
As I said, I'm going to make my own humble attempt, in this area, for
rock musicians at my website www.beathoven.com. I'd really welcome you
checking my stuff out when I've uploaded it and telling just exactly
how wrong you think I am and where you think I drift off into total
bullshit. The series will be titled SEX, THEORY AND ROCK 'N' ROLL. It
will, however, concentrate on the music of the Beatles.
Ian
Josh Dougherty
>
> >> Lets not make assumptions shall we?
> >
> >I don't see it as an assumption. I see it as describing your assersion.
> >Then I chose to take your position to its' logical conclusion by using
> >another example. You are claiming that information closes the doors of
> >possibility while ignorance is freedom in terms of music theory.
>
> I think you still don't understand what you're arguing against.
Well, I believe I do. I don't believe you understand what your own argument
is
because I don't think you really know what "music theory" is, which is why
I'm trying to
apply the concept to other objects that you may be familiar with.
> What you describe there, how can anyone support that idea?
I don't know. That's why I'm trying to show that it's really no different
with music theory.
> You've altered my argument quite a bit in order to bolster your own
counter-argument and in
> the process have lost the whole point of the discussion. It's called
> exaggeration and generalization.
It's called applying the same concept to another object.
> Let me give you an example of limiting information. We actually
experience
> it firsthand. Many people watch the news but they do not realize that
> American media is very ignorant of thousands of important issues in the
> world. Though an individual may watch the news believing that he is being
> informed, he is in fact being misinformed by being isolated from real
> issues.
Now you're applying a concept to a different object. That's just
"exaggeration" and "generalization".
So is it the news that is limiting them, or is it *their* misinterperetation
of the news as being a complete description of the world that is limiting
them? Would they be
less limited and more informed with no news? less news? What?
The solution IMO is correcting the misinterperetation, not getting rid of
the news.
> >> >Then really this songwriter should have never touched an instrument or
> >> >listened to music prior to writing his song. If he knows nothing and
has
> >> >played nothing, then his options are wide open. It's all downhill
from
> >> >there.
> >>
> >> Is picking up a musical instrument or listening to music the same as
> >> studying music theory?
> >
> >Picking up a musical instrument and learning to play any existing
structure
> >such as a "C chord" is the first step into the realm of music theory.
> >
> Need for clarification, would you call an individual who knows some
chords,
> then goes on to play around with these chords, altering them a bit,
> experimenting, being inspired by and utilizing music that he was exposed
to,
> and another individual who actually takes *courses* in music theory to be
> both "scholars of musical theory?"
The only thing being questioned here is the definition of "scholar". Both
are engaging in music theory.
> For some reason you have chosen to have music theory consist of everything
> that consists of chords, notes, use of notes and chords in combination,
etc
> etc.
:) That's because it is. Any time you are thinking about how these
things work, that's music theory.
> Of course that's not what I'm arguing against.
You are arguing some romantic idea of what you think the "right way" to
write music is, and you have this uninformed notion that theory and
creativity are in opposition. Everyone writes music differently. If you
think that one way is better. Goody for you. Why should I care?
> >Listening to music could be abstractly related to music theory, but I'll
let
> >someone else take on that job. :)
>
> Abstractly related to music theory? No please, elaborate, too hard to
> explain yourself?
well....yes.
> >What it does do though, is embed certain sounds and relationships into
your
> >conscious and subconscious while leaving out all the rest (everything you
> >haven't listened to yet). It is your same argument with music theory.
What
> >you have listened to will supposedly prejudice you to create music that
way,
> >to the exclusion of other possibilites.
>
> Not so, in fact quite the opposite.
> Some renowned musicians have had their "song" that inspired them to
> cultivate their own style.
Sure, some have and others have become slavish clones of the patterns they
listened to. Same with music theory.
> It wasn't the *patterns* in the song that prejudiced them into becoming a
mere clone, but
> it was the complexity, the wide range in expression, the innovation in the
> song that motivated them to become pioneers themselves. These I would say
> the more respectable musicians in my book.
More respectable than who? Someone who was also aware of the patterns? I
listen to the results. You can romanticize over what everyone else's
process should be.
> >> I is apparent that those who had very little
> >> exposure to music will have fewer options available to him/her in
writing
> >> his/her own songs. But does being "exposed" to music equate to being
> >> "exposed" to music theory?
> >
> >They are very similar in the way of exposure/options yes.
>
> I still think you need to define "music theory" since you have applied
this
> to everything from listening to music, making music, playing chords, etc
etc..
> I see a fundamental difference.
Music theory is thinking about how music works.
> Music theory is grounded in academia
I think music theory is a lot more broad than you think it is.
> whereas you can be exposed to music from vast range of sources, the radio,
> an outside festival, a mother's lullaby,..
and when you think about the inner workings of any of it, you are stepping
into the realm of music theory.
> So if one individual listens to
> dance music all year round, and another actively researches in music
theory,
> they both end up being *equally* musically inclined?
I'm not sure how you would judge "equally" in the first place. If the
former were listening to the music and thinking about how they were relating
and what was making it work, then he was engaging in "music theory", however
rudimentary or advanced his results wound up being. The latter is of course
engaging in music theory because he is presumably researching, and therefore
*thinking* about how the properties of music work.
I was not claiming that listening or hearing music is the same activity as
music theory. I was claiming that everything you are saying about music
theory would also apply to listening to music, ie: limiting the options
based on what one has or hasn't been exposed to.
> >> Well it seems that way in your definition of
> >> music theory, this all pervating presence. But really, I'm talking
about a
> >> scholastic approach to songwriting via music theory.
> >
> >I'm not sure what the "scholastic approach" is. If someone knows music
> >theory and chooses to use C-F6-G7, and someone that doesn't chooses to
use
> >C-F6-G7. What's the difference?
>
> I think you're missing a big part of what it means to write music.
No, you are missing the basic truth that the boundaries of "what it means to
write music" are not defined for everyone else by *you*.
> The actual written notes are the same, but the context in which they are
used,
> the way they are utilized to express something, are so often unique that
one
> can't really say they are literally the same.
Of course not. Two blues songs can use the same exact chords and produce
very different results.
> >chosen method rather than the result. If you're just saying that you
like
> >more simple music and it shouldn't use anything that you perceive as
> >"technical", then so be it. Don't listen to music that you think is
> >technical.
>
> *All* music has a technical aspect. What I am referring to is the
technical
> aspect of composing music.
yes....whatever you decide that to mean.
> >If you are claiming that music theory results in "stiff" or "emotionless"
> >sounding music or whatever, then I'd say you're wrong. Listen to John
> >Coltrane sometime.
>
> Of course it can't be emotionless, I don't think it's even possible to
> create an emotionless piece. What I am referring to as "stiff" or
> "emotionless" is not the end product but the actual writing process.
I listen to the results. You can romanticize a "noble savage" concept and
try to figure out who followed it and who didn't before you decide if you
like the music or not.
> The end product may very well be emotional, but the manner in which it was
> produced was based on the technical vantage point.
I listen to the results. Everyone has their own manner of producing music.
The more the better.
> >If you just don't like anything that sounds "complicated" or "technical"
> >then so be it. Don't listen. If you think that anything "technical" or
> >"complicated" is automatically "stiff" and "emotionless", then that's too
> >bad. I don't agree with that, but so what. Don't listen.
> >
>
> I am not at all against complexity. I have no idea where you got that.
In
> fact, I am often bored by simplistic patterns repeated over and over again
> in pop music. Complexity is a sign of higher expression.
>
> >If you think music theory results in "technical" or "complicated" music,
>
> Once again you place my term "technical" which I meant for the actual
> writing process and place it into the end product.
I listen to the results.
> >then I'd say that sometimes yes, but not necessarily. The reason, I'd
think
> >that might be so is that the people that are drawn to music theory more
than
> >others probably have a tendency toward appreciating things that are a
little
> >more complex and the theory helps them discover and use more complex
> >relationships in their music. Other people study music theory and like
> >simple music and use the elements of music theory to inform their
decisions
> >in writing simpler relationships.
>
> Well let me ask you this, does greater complexity equate to better music?
You seem to think so: "Complexity is a sign of higher expression".
I don't really think "Better music" can not be judged with one variable.
I'm not sure it can be judged at all with any universal truth. So I'd say
sometimes yes, sometimes no.
> >> You started off saying that the individual learns some chords (good
> >> thing)
> >
> >No, this would be a *bad* thing because now he has one chord placed in a
> >position of "value" more important than all the others he hasn't learned.
> >
>
> You seem to be confused and seem to be speaking for me. When I say "good
> thing" that is what I'm actually thinking.
Your thinking is very inconsistent so it's hard to tell. I was trying to
illustrate the inconsistency, but the walls of prejudice are hard to break
down.
> >> eventually learning that some combination sounds better than others
(good
> >thing)
> >
> >No. First I didn't say that he learned that "some sound better than
> >others". I just said that he learned some combinations.
>
> No you said that he focuses on these combinations and plays them to the
> exclusion of other chord combinations.
Yes. He learned some combinations. How can he decide that they "sound
better than others" when he doesn't know the others?
> >This again is a *bad* thing because now he has these combinations placed
as more important
> >than all the others he has yet to learn.
>
> Well please clarify when you are speaking for me and when you are speaking
> for yourself. I actually see this as a good thing.
That's funny because the same concept seems to apply to everything except
when you name it "music theory". Then the wall of prejudice comes up.
> >> to the exclusion of others (bad thing) then suggest the possibility
> >> that the individual remained a blank slate. (bad thing)
> >
> >No. That would be a *good* thing because then information has not
> >prejudiced his creativity into choosing those chords and combinations
while
> >devaluing others.
>
> Ok since you equate learning a few chords to learning music theory, I
guess
> we can do away with all the other premises of music theory.
You can if you want. Learning the word "the" is also learning English. If
you wish to stop there, go ahead.
> Just teach prospective musicians a few chords and there you go, they know
as much music
> theory as they will ever need. That's what I've been saying the whole
time.
That's because you are totally uninformed of what you are arguing against,
yet still fully assured that you are correct.
> Chords are good, the other stuff, questionable.
What's the "other stuff"?
> >> Learning chords is a big help, especially to the beginner,
> >
> >No. Each chord they learn serves to prejudice them to using these chords
> >and makes them seem valuable while devaluing all the others that they
> >haven't learned.
> >
>
> Um right, has this roleplay been insightful? Neither you or I want this
so
> who are you speaking for?
I'm taking your argument to its' logical conclusion. The fact that you
can't see the relationship is the insightful part. You have a prejudice
about something you don't understand "music theory". It's just thinking
about how music works dude. It's not going to bite you.
Sure, as much as learning a C chord can, or listening to music.
> >> What I mean by self-discovery in music is not the rediscovery of
chords,
> >> which is of very minor significance, but *with* the knowledge of
chords, the
> >> discovery of complex harmonies in chord combinations.
> >
> >??? You can take this journey with or without theory. It's only seems
like
> >common sense to me that using the information available will make this
> >journey go smoother and faster.
>
> Yes but would you want to take the path that many have taken or go in your
> own path pioneering a new musical style and truly applying your
creativity?
Yes.
> I think before you respond you should try to understand where I'm coming
> from and exactly what my argument is.
I do. Your argument is that information limits you. You don't seem to see
that music theory is just information. Using this information to better
yourself as a musician does not stand in opposition to "creativity" or
"inspiration" or anything else you seem to think that it does.
> You've written so much addressing
> something other than my argument.
It is exactly your argument. It applies to chords and listening the same
way. You just have an uninformed prejudice against what you believe "music
theory" is and you draw your own conclusions.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
> >been made to happen you are engaging in a form of music theory whether
> >you know it and choose to call it that or not.
> >
>
> You'd very much like that to be true but music theory approaches music
from
> the technical vantage point to the end product being emotional response,
> whereas there is also the musician that is looking for that certain sound,
> in which case he already has a preconceived notion of the type of sound he
> is looking for.
"whereas" implies that these two things are in opposition and mutually
exclusive. They're not.
> >> The
> >> future of music composition may well lie in computer programs which
might be
> >> able to produce work much more impressive than anything written by
humans.
People have already used computers to make music that people could never
play.
A guy named Nancarrow wrote compositions for the player piano that did all
kinds of wild stuff that no human could play on a regular piano.
> >So what? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Bad for who? The listener?
> >If there are no listeners being impressed then who is being impressed?
> >Music is primarily for listeners but the experience of listening to
> >music is many many times greater when one human is intimately involved
> >in the projection of the music in real time to another human. So in
> >computer music the listening experience will most often not be as rich,
> >although someday I hope a computer music genius composer comes along and
> >proves me wrong. The only people really suffering with computer music
> >are the players. In computer generated music the programmer is
> >essentially the composer. Until computers start writing their own
> >programs that is.
> >
>
> So you see nothing wrong with music compositions made by unfeeling robots?
Nope.
> How about one day if computerized vocals are added in, so that we have
> completely automated bands that make no sacrifice whatsoever, the members
of
> which have nothing in common with us, yet sing about "the human
condition?"
Nope. Still no problem. What this has to do with music theory is beyond
me. Sounds like a good episode of Star Trek though.
> >So? What's your point?
>
> Then the computer would become famous, after having written many renowned
> pieces will eventually retire in leisure at a french villa where he
reflect
> on his existence and influence.
Do you really spend your time worrying about this? You might want to think
about laying off the weed for a while joe. :)
Josh
Inotmark
>In music, the only mode of expression is through the nature of the
>note/chords themselves and the particular combination in which they are
>placed in.
this is of course untrue, as various elements such as ethos and associative
tonality create a symbolic musical lexicon which is also capable of
manipulation
> So saying that a certain combination is preferable to another
>combination would persuade you to choose a particular route of expression.
anyone who says a certain combination is preferable to another is a bad
theorist.
>But in english, it is not only certain combinations that 'make sense' but a
>great variety of choice in expression although we are confined by the rules
>of grammer.
if you have not observed that same variety of expression in music you might
want to talk to mr. silverman.
>The rules in this case are THE mode of expression whereas music
>theory describes certain combinations of notes/chords WITHIN THE MODE that
>it deems to have value.
this again is really false. i don't know where you get such ideas. do you
know any music?
>Mathematics on the other hand is a PURELY descriptive science and does not
>allow any room for "expression" in the same sense of musical "expression."
>The rules of mathematics is THE mode of expression (purely of facts) of a
>particular phenomena.
hmmm, how about different proofs of the same elements, and the resulting
elegance of expression?
i think your view of the world is too chopped up.
Inotmark
James King
<wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> David Webber wrote in message
> <1012070518.7554.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > Music theory does not "allow" or "forbid" things - it describes them
> > in a consistent framework.
> Doesn't it describe what chords are to be 'associated' with other
> chords? In that sense it doesn't only describe but places value on
> some chord/note combinations while devaluing others.
Of course, you are free to write whatever chord combinations you would
like to. There is no *law* that requires you to obey the rules that
have been determined to exist in some well-liked music.
The music came first ... and some music, for some reason, sounded
better than other music.
Then someone asked, "Why does this particular music sound better? There
MUST be a reason."
That's when the "theories" regarding why this music sounded better
began to develop.
That's also why the "rules" are frequently "broken." Because the rules
come later. The music comes first. Someone writes something that breaks
the rules, and people like it so there are new theories added that show
that this new idea also makes sense musically.
> What is the role of music theory? Is it to help compose music? What
> about the emotions associated with chord/note combinations? Does the
> theory go into that realm?
I took english classes when I was a child. I didn't NEED to take those
classes in order to speak english. But knowing how the parts of speech
work help me know *why* what I'm saying makes sense. It also helps me
write better, but it's not a replacement for creativity.
Otherwise my sentence might be difficult to understand,
perhapswithoutanyspacestodefinethebeginningandendingsofwords, or order
with word the jumbled difficult it's so read to.
> > Just because you don't know what a "Neapolitan 6th" is, doesn't mean
> > you are not using theory. But I suspect that the composers of more
> > sophisticated popular music learn more as they go along than some
> > others. If you trace the Beatles output over 10 years or so, there
> > is an immense change from very simple songs to much more complex
> > ones; I'm sure lennon and McCartney learned a lot of theory as they
> > went along.
> So basically even before they wrote their complex songs, the value of
> the chord combinations in those complex songs were already well
> documented in music theory?
Yes. Although what was basically said in the theory classes was that
those chord combinations "make sense." The emotion is these songs is
largely a function of the performer. If Kathie Lee sang "Strawberry
Fields Forever," would it have the same emotional impact?
The emotional impact is not solely a function of the chord progression.
James King
--
Enjoy a classic 30-minute drama absolutely free!
http://www.shadowradio.org
James King
<jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "joe" <wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i3L48.10390$tg4.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> > Is picking up a musical instrument or listening to music the same as
> > studying music theory?
> Picking up a musical instrument and learning to play any existing
> structure such as a "C chord" is the first step into the realm of
> music theory.
I'd like to quote Ward Cannel and Fred Marx from "How to Play the Piano
Despite Years of Lessons":
---begin quote---
THE MYTH: There is music. And then there is something else called
"music theory."
Now, there is an effictive road-block to throw in the path of someone
who wants to know why -- why those needless hours of scales? why do
chords change? etc. You only have to reply, "Don't think about it, just
do it!" and catastrophe has been averted. You only have to say, "People
aren't interested in theory, they just want to know how to play." And
with that, you have done your part to keep that know-how out of their
reach.
The true fact is that music *is* theory. We share an agreement, a
contract, -- an idea -- which pulls together a few simple facts
together and makes what we call music.
[...]
No, there is only one rule in making music, and that is: if it sounds
good, then it is good.
What sounds good follows from our agreement with each other about what
makes sense, or nonsense, of oncoming tones. That agreement has evolved
and grown slowly in the past 400 years, and continues to evolve and
grow. So there is no rule or regulation or law at work. There are only
a few historical principles of growth which can be observed with a
backward look. If you want to make your own music, these few principles
become starting places and options only. In the end, *your idea* makes
music that sounds good to you.
In a nutshell then: People know how to pull oncoming tones together and
say whether it is music or gibberish. And they do so all the time
simply by listening. That is because people have an idea in mind which
organizes those oncoming tones. If people can't organize those tones
into music, it is usually because the composer has a different idea in
mind. Making music with an instrument -- a piano for example -- is
merely expressing the idea out loud.
The fact remains, however, that people know how to make music because
they are people -- creatures who use ideas in order to organize the
world and all the things in it. But whether people are aware of the
ideas they use all the time is another matter.
Joey Goldstein
joe wrote:
>
> Joey Goldstein wrote in message <3C53AD20...@nowhere.net>...
> >
> >
> >joe wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >It sounds like your mind is already made up so why are you even
> >> >bothering to ask the question?
> >>
> >> I'm not anti- music theory,
> >
> >Gimmee a break, of course you are.
>
> Well it seems you've already made up your mind about my being anti-music
> theory. =)
> Getting defensive are we?
Oi.
> >
> >> it just feels somewhat artificial to me.
> >
> >I agree that a little theory can be a bad thing. IMO most rock musicians
> >who have had their intuitive powers clipped a bit by studying music
> >theory or by lesrning how to read music have simply quit too soon.
>
> Who are these rock musicians most of whom start their careers by studying
> music theory? Not the ones that I know of.
???? I never said anything remotely similar to the way you are
paraphrasing me above.
I teach jazz guitar and "theory" to many young people coming out of a
rock and roll background. When someone first learns a different way to
think about something that they have been doing more or less intuitively
it causes them to think and to play differently and it may take some
time for the new idea to become so ingrained as to become availble
through intuition again. The process of learning something new in music
often involves relearning what you thought you knew and it can be
overwhelmingly frustrating for someone who does not have the patience or
the willpower to see things through. Those are the young rock musicians
I was talking about.
I have a free book posted at my web site about devolping a jazz
technique on the guitar. You might find it helpful but it's got lots of
"theory". Actually, I think of the theory that is there more as being
technique but many would disagree with me.
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Look for Joe's Guitar Method.
> The
> >simplest things in a beginner harmony course do not really explain very
> >well some of the very simple sounding harmonic devices of everyday
> >music. If you persevere with the study most musical things that you will
> >encounter can be understood much clearer though.
> >
> >Is it the study of classical harmony that you object to? Jazz harmony?
> >Harmony period? Counterpoint? Acoustics? The overtone series?
> >Aesthetics? Alternate tunings for the guitar? Power chords in rock? The
> >blues scale? Digital signal processing in FX pedals? Chord progressions
> >preferred by the Sex Pistols? What? The area of covered by "music
> >theory" is pretty vast y'know.
>
> Seems that way. I've already expressed my viewpoints, and have admitted I
> was wrong on some points. The fact is, music theory has its pros and cons.
> It *can* be limiting but it can also be enlightening. It's a mixed bag of
> sorts.
The cretaion of music is a wholistic affair but the study of music is
usually an affair requiring reductionism, where you "limit" your focus
to one aspect of the music at a time. All studying requires placing
limitations on your focus. All practicing requires placing limitations
on your focus. Every once in a while someone like Mozart comes a long
who appears to have been capable of dealing wholistically with his
compositions right from the start but that is highly unusual.
> >Anytine you engage in thought about why or how something musical has
> >been made to happen you are engaging in a form of music theory whether
> >you know it and choose to call it that or not.
> >
>
> You'd very much like that to be true
It IS true! Oi.
> but music theory approaches music from
> the technical vantage point to the end product being emotional response,
Music theory rarely enters into the realm of emotion but it can.
> whereas there is also the musician that is looking for that certain sound,
> in which case he already has a preconceived notion of the type of sound he
> is looking for.
And how does a musician come to the point in his life where he has a
preconcieved notion of the type of sound he is looking for? By
experience. By listening the music of other people that he enjoys and by
trying to decipher what makes that music enjoyable. I.e. Theorizing
about music. Oi.
>
> >> The
> >> future of music composition may well lie in computer programs which might
> be
> >> able to produce work much more impressive than anything written by
> humans.
> >
> >So what? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Bad for who? The listener?
> >If there are no listeners being impressed then who is being impressed?
> >Music is primarily for listeners but the experience of listening to
> >music is many many times greater when one human is intimately involved
> >in the projection of the music in real time to another human. So in
> >computer music the listening experience will most often not be as rich,
> >although someday I hope a computer music genius composer comes along and
> >proves me wrong. The only people really suffering with computer music
> >are the players. In computer generated music the programmer is
> >essentially the composer. Until computers start writing their own
> >programs that is.
> >
>
> So you see nothing wrong with music compositions made by unfeeling robots?
No. Something beautiful is still beautiful no matter who or what made it.
> How about one day if computerized vocals are added in, so that we have
> completely automated bands that make no sacrifice whatsoever,
Sacrifice? Is that what you want from your musicians? Geez. I don't want
to play in your band. Great musicians don't sacrifiece anything. They do
exactly what they want to all day long. To not be musicians would be the
sacrifice. Oi.
> the members of
> which have nothing in common with us, yet sing about "the human condition?"
If those lyrics had some meaning for the human listeners who enjoyed
that music then so be it. There's no accounting for taste.
> >> That's where I see music theory eventually being applied to.
> >
> >All the music theory that is required for what you propose is already
> >available, available to humans. What is not available is a computer
> >program sophisticated enough to make aesthetic judgements as to what
> >humans will want to hear.
>
> Well I was aware of that, the sentence I wrote would suggest otherwise.
>
> >
> >> It might be in
> >> the future that the programmers of automated music composers will be as
> >> highly regarded as Beethoven was in his time.
> >
> >So? What's your point?
>
> Then the computer would become famous, after having written many renowned
> pieces will eventually retire in leisure at a french villa where he reflect
> on his existence and influence.
No it won't. The programmer, a human, will become famous. And even if
there was a famous computer that required no programmer the humans that
built it would become famous. And if there was a computer that could
design and program itself to create great musical works it would deserve
to be famous. Actually it would then be a life form and other computers
would have to decide whether or not the musical computer was making good music.
You seem to be looking for some essence in music that only a human being
can create but that essence does not necessarilly only exist in the
composer. It may be located moreso in the ear of the listener.
Joey Goldstein
James King wrote:
>
> If Kathie Lee sang "Strawberry
> Fields Forever," would it have the same emotional impact?
That's funny!
Joey Goldstein
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>
> You seem to be looking for some essence in music that only a human being
> can create but that essence does not necessarilly only exist in the
> composer. It may be located moreso in the ear of the listener.
And, obviously in music created by a human there is a listener present
at all stages of the compositional process.
Dr.Matt
For the books: Mozart appears to have had about 6 years of music
theory (as well as violin and harpsichord) before he started
composing. Latest research says his dad wrote the Toy Symphony, not Haydn.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
joe
Inotmark wrote in message <20020127084356...@mb-ce.aol.com>...
>>From: "joe" wildb...@hotmail.com
>
>>In music, the only mode of expression is through the nature of the
>>note/chords themselves and the particular combination in which they are
>>placed in.
>
>this is of course untrue, as various elements such as ethos and associative
>tonality create a symbolic musical lexicon which is also capable of
>manipulation
All of which are are expressed by the particular *combination* that the
notes are placed in, including the silent note.
>
>> So saying that a certain combination is preferable to another
>>combination would persuade you to choose a particular route of expression.
>
>anyone who says a certain combination is preferable to another is a bad
>theorist.
>
Why study music theory if it doesn't emphasize (value) some chord
relationships over others? If all relationships and chord structures were
deemed equivalent, then what value is there in play a certain progression as
opposed to another? Obviously there *has* to be some value system
emphasizing a certain way of approaching music as opposed to say having a
computer play random notes on a piano.
>>But in english, it is not only certain combinations that 'make sense' but
a
>>great variety of choice in expression although we are confined by the
rules
>>of grammer.
>
>if you have not observed that same variety of expression in music you might
>want to talk to mr. silverman.
>
I'm not saying the variety of expression doesn't exist, I'm saying that
there is a limiting aspect of music theory. I've been told in this
newsgroup that sometimes people break the rules of music theory. Why is it
that rules *are* broken when music theory does not limit at all? We've
reached a contradiction.
>>The rules in this case are THE mode of expression whereas music
>>theory describes certain combinations of notes/chords WITHIN THE MODE that
>>it deems to have value.
>
>this again is really false. i don't know where you get such ideas. do you
>know any music?
>
false as opposed to "really false." What do you mean "do I know music?"
No, I haven't studied music theory intensively, but have been exposed to it.
It's easy to dismiss, harder to argue against.
>>Mathematics on the other hand is a PURELY descriptive science and does not
>>allow any room for "expression" in the same sense of musical "expression."
>>The rules of mathematics is THE mode of expression (purely of facts) of a
>>particular phenomena.
>
>hmmm, how about different proofs of the same elements, and the resulting
>elegance of expression?
>
There is a finite number of ways of proving a given proposition. Though
certainly you can *tweak* with a particular proof and make various versions
of it, the fundamentally different approaches to proving a proposition is
finite.
>i think your view of the world is too chopped up.
It's easier to dismiss than to argue against. Obviously you've made up your
mind about what is right.
joe
>news:ezO48.10462$tg4.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>>
>> Joey Goldstein wrote in message <3C53AD20...@nowhere.net>...
>> >Anytine you engage in thought about why or how something musical has
>> >been made to happen you are engaging in a form of music theory whether
>> >you know it and choose to call it that or not.
>> >
>>
>> You'd very much like that to be true but music theory approaches music
>from
>> the technical vantage point to the end product being emotional response,
>> whereas there is also the musician that is looking for that certain
sound,
>> in which case he already has a preconceived notion of the type of sound
he
>> is looking for.
>
>"whereas" implies that these two things are in opposition and mutually
>exclusive. They're not.
They are not mutually exclusive. This was not evident in my statement
above.
>
>> >> The
>> >> future of music composition may well lie in computer programs which
>might be
>> >> able to produce work much more impressive than anything written by
>humans.
>
>People have already used computers to make music that people could never
>play.
I'm well aware of that.
>
>A guy named Nancarrow wrote compositions for the player piano that did all
>kinds of wild stuff that no human could play on a regular piano.
>
>> >So what? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Bad for who? The listener?
>> >If there are no listeners being impressed then who is being impressed?
>> >Music is primarily for listeners but the experience of listening to
>> >music is many many times greater when one human is intimately involved
>> >in the projection of the music in real time to another human. So in
>> >computer music the listening experience will most often not be as rich,
>> >although someday I hope a computer music genius composer comes along and
>> >proves me wrong. The only people really suffering with computer music
>> >are the players. In computer generated music the programmer is
>> >essentially the composer. Until computers start writing their own
>> >programs that is.
>> >
>>
>> So you see nothing wrong with music compositions made by unfeeling
robots?
>
>Nope.
>
Of course personal preferences are of no concern to me.
>> How about one day if computerized vocals are added in, so that we have
>> completely automated bands that make no sacrifice whatsoever, the members
>of
>> which have nothing in common with us, yet sing about "the human
>condition?"
>
>Nope. Still no problem. What this has to do with music theory is beyond
>me. Sounds like a good episode of Star Trek though.
>
Well it seems you are not aware of the implications of music theory. Think
hard, it might come to you after all.
>> >So? What's your point?
>>
>> Then the computer would become famous, after having written many renowned
>> pieces will eventually retire in leisure at a french villa where he
>reflect
>> on his existence and influence.
>
>Do you really spend your time worrying about this? You might want to think
>about laying off the weed for a while joe. :)
>
Seems you didn't like my little joke, but really I wouldn't mind that much
if computers did make great music.
>Josh
>
>
joe
>> >
>> >I agree that a little theory can be a bad thing. IMO most rock musicians
>> >who have had their intuitive powers clipped a bit by studying music
>> >theory or by lesrning how to read music have simply quit too soon.
>>
>> Who are these rock musicians most of whom start their careers by studying
>> music theory? Not the ones that I know of.
>
>???? I never said anything remotely similar to the way you are
>paraphrasing me above.
I was referring to your definition of "studying music theory" which seems to
encompass everything from listening to music, playing a few chords, to
actually taking a music theory course in college. I like to make a
distinction from the individual who becomes a renowned guitarist through
intimate knowledge of the guitar without knowing the terms and theories
associated with music theory and the student of music theory.
>
>I teach jazz guitar and "theory" to many young people coming out of a
>rock and roll background. When someone first learns a different way to
>think about something that they have been doing more or less intuitively
>it causes them to think and to play differently and it may take some
>time for the new idea to become so ingrained as to become availble
>through intuition again. The process of learning something new in music
>often involves relearning what you thought you knew and it can be
>overwhelmingly frustrating for someone who does not have the patience or
>the willpower to see things through. Those are the young rock musicians
>I was talking about.
All this necessary information for some reason was absence in the snippet
above. Try to understand I didn't *know* you taught music theory to
youngsters coming from a rock and roll background until now.
Makes sense to me.
>
>> >Anytine you engage in thought about why or how something musical has
>> >been made to happen you are engaging in a form of music theory whether
>> >you know it and choose to call it that or not.
>> >
>>
>> You'd very much like that to be true
>
>It IS true! Oi.
I like to limit my definition of "music theory" so it remains in the
academic sphere. Not to say "music theory" is an exclusive sphere from
listing to the radio, sure they overlap, interact, but they are still two
different entities.
So tell me in teaching music theory, do you go over the evolution of music
itself? The Jimi Hendrix era, the punk era in Britain, the following
postpunk era, the grunge scene in America, the interaction between music
scenes in Britain and America, the significance of the band Nirvana in
America, MTV's effect of limiting creativity, etc etc? Or do you teach about
techniques used in classically composed pieces? Not to say the study of the
former is *better* than the latter, just trying to clarify what *I* mean.
>
>> but music theory approaches music from
>> the technical vantage point to the end product being emotional response,
>
>Music theory rarely enters into the realm of emotion but it can.
>
that it *can* doesn't really say much for me. It just tells me how much
you'd like music theory to encompass everything music. I'll agree it does
in certain respects, mostly in the technical sense, but there are other
things that music theory doesn't even touch. I'm sure you avoid certain
peculiarities in music instead of wonder "why they exist" purely out of
distaste.
>> whereas there is also the musician that is looking for that certain
sound,
>> in which case he already has a preconceived notion of the type of sound
he
>> is looking for.
>
>And how does a musician come to the point in his life where he has a
>preconcieved notion of the type of sound he is looking for? By
>experience. By listening the music of other people that he enjoys and by
>trying to decipher what makes that music enjoyable. I.e. Theorizing
>about music. Oi.
Seems true, and is true at certain levels, but there is a difference to me
of studying the actual music itself and of studying the music through use of
terms and techniques and formulations of music theory. In both ways an
individual can be limited, or can also be enlightened. Both have their pros
and cons.
>
>>
>> >> The
>> >> future of music composition may well lie in computer programs which
might
>> be
>> >> able to produce work much more impressive than anything written by
>> humans.
>> >
>> >So what? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Bad for who? The listener?
>> >If there are no listeners being impressed then who is being impressed?
>> >Music is primarily for listeners but the experience of listening to
>> >music is many many times greater when one human is intimately involved
>> >in the projection of the music in real time to another human. So in
>> >computer music the listening experience will most often not be as rich,
>> >although someday I hope a computer music genius composer comes along and
>> >proves me wrong. The only people really suffering with computer music
>> >are the players. In computer generated music the programmer is
>> >essentially the composer. Until computers start writing their own
>> >programs that is.
>> >
>>
>> So you see nothing wrong with music compositions made by unfeeling
robots?
>
>No. Something beautiful is still beautiful no matter who or what made it.
>
I'm getting the feeling that it doesn't matter in the end either. But still
there seems something wrong with being able to compose acceptable music so
effortlessly. It would make the labors of Beethoven and others seem futile.
Even more so if an automated composition surpassed works of Beethoven. To
me it would be the same as a worker in a car factory who for 20 years has
labored and been proud of his contribution to auto manufacturing eventually
being replaced by a more efficient and cheaper robot model. But what small
price to pay for the possibility of much better music. (supposing that
automated music composition is indeed possible)
>> How about one day if computerized vocals are added in, so that we have
>> completely automated bands that make no sacrifice whatsoever,
>
>Sacrifice? Is that what you want from your musicians? Geez. I don't want
>to play in your band. Great musicians don't sacrifiece anything. They do
>exactly what they want to all day long. To not be musicians would be the
>sacrifice. Oi.
>
You've got me there. Sure there are labors to overcome in composing music
but that is only the means toward the end. Artists gladly take small
sacrifices to achieve higher things. I guess what I should've been pointing
out instead was that the robots *don't care* whether we like their
composition or not. And that they were not inspired but programmed to do
so. But I've also heard that George Harrison really hated being in the
Beatles. He once said that being in the Beatles was a nightmare.
>> the members of
>> which have nothing in common with us, yet sing about "the human
condition?"
>
>If those lyrics had some meaning for the human listeners who enjoyed
>that music then so be it. There's no accounting for taste.
Again I also see no difference in long run. But still it would seem strange
one day that though several millions of *humans* have been playing music
about the human condition, the most impressive and heartfelt music came from
a computer. Not to say this will actually happen or possibly even happen.
But if it did, then could that mean robots may be better at being *human*
than humans? As you can see I am obsessed with robots and the future, but
the thought intrigues me. One day robots may be our decendents. (good or
bad)
>> Then the computer would become famous, after having written many renowned
>> pieces will eventually retire in leisure at a french villa where he
reflect
>> on his existence and influence.
>
>No it won't. The programmer, a human, will become famous.
Sure he too would become famous, but by accident. Just like the guy who
invented silly puddy.
And even if
>there was a famous computer that required no programmer the humans that
>built it would become famous. And if there was a computer that could
>design and program itself to create great musical works it would deserve
>to be famous. Actually it would then be a life form and other computers
>would have to decide whether or not the musical computer was making good
music.
What about if a programmer made a robot, then the robot made a computer and
as programmer made the best sounding music ever!!! Then what? Huh?
joe
Makes sense to me. No problems here. I just see the distinction between a
person educated in music theory in school and an individual who discovers it
through his own influences, mentors, experience. Sure at some levels they
are the same, but also different. I'm not saying one is *better* than the
other. Only the end product truly matters.
joe
Inotmark wrote in message <20020127084537...@mb-ce.aol.com>...
Glad to have made your day. Taken out of context, almost anything can be
hilarious.
Josh Dougherty
> >
> >> So saying that a certain combination is preferable to another
> >>combination would persuade you to choose a particular route of
expression.
> >
> >anyone who says a certain combination is preferable to another is a bad
> >theorist.
> >
>
> Why study music theory if it doesn't emphasize (value) some chord
> relationships over others?
Because music theory does not and can not determine what chord relationship
will have value or not have value for some as yet unwritten music.
The value is determined by the writer in the context of the particularly
music.
> If all relationships and chord structures were
> deemed equivalent,
I hasn't deemed any chord structure as equivalent or better or anything
else.
> then what value is there in play a certain progression as
> opposed to another?
That's your decision to make.
> Obviously there *has* to be some value system
> emphasizing a certain way of approaching music as opposed to say having a
> computer play random notes on a piano.
Yes, it's evidenced by a beginner who learns how to play a C major chord
first rather than an Ab/G poly-chord.
You can use theory to study the building blocks of music, and to study the
various "value systems" that previous musicians have chosen to place on
these building blocks. You then choose whatever value system you wish.
Perhaps at some later date a music theorist will attempt to describe the one
you chose.
The "value" of anything is determined in the context of the music being
written or performed, by the person writing or performing it. It's not
mandated before-hand by a monolithic theory policeman.
> >>But in english, it is not only certain combinations that 'make sense'
but a
> >>great variety of choice in expression although we are confined by the
rules
> >>of grammer.
> >
> >if you have not observed that same variety of expression in music you
might
> >want to talk to mr. silverman.
> >
>
> I'm not saying the variety of expression doesn't exist, I'm saying that
> there is a limiting aspect of music theory.
Yes, just like there's a limiting aspect to listening to music or learning
how to play a chord.
> I've been told in this
> newsgroup that sometimes people break the rules of music theory.
You've been told repeatedly that there aren't any "rules" that music theory
imposes on someone creating their own music. Any chord or note can go
anywhere at anytime that the writer chooses to go with it. Music theory's
job is to explain it in some rational manner.
> Why is it that rules *are* broken when music theory does not limit at all?
We've
> reached a contradiction.
The term "rules" should appear in quotes as its' a euphemism used to dumb
down a more complex proposition, and doesn't really exist.
The very fact that these so called "rules" are "broken" anywhere and
everywhere, at any time is just more evidence that these so called "rules"
have no authority over you and never did. IOW...they aren't really "rules"
in the first place, certainly not in the sense you are assuming.
> >>The rules in this case are THE mode of expression whereas music
> >>theory describes certain combinations of notes/chords WITHIN THE MODE
that
> >>it deems to have value.
> >
> >this again is really false. i don't know where you get such ideas. do
you
> >know any music?
> >
>
> false as opposed to "really false." What do you mean "do I know music?"
> No, I haven't studied music theory intensively, but have been exposed to
it.
> It's easy to dismiss, harder to argue against.
It's particularly hard to argue against something when you do not understand
it at all.
> >i think your view of the world is too chopped up.
>
> It's easier to dismiss than to argue against. Obviously you've made up
your
> mind about what is right.
As have you. The difference though, is that you've done so while standing
in a position of ignorance of what you're making up your mind about.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
>
> Josh Dougherty wrote in message <3c53...@MAIL.mhogaming.com>...
> >"joe" <wildb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ezO48.10462$tg4.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> >>
> >> Joey Goldstein wrote in message <3C53AD20...@nowhere.net>...
> >> >Anytine you engage in thought about why or how something musical has
> >> >been made to happen you are engaging in a form of music theory whether
> >> >you know it and choose to call it that or not.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You'd very much like that to be true but music theory approaches music
from
> >> the technical vantage point to the end product being emotional
response,
> >> whereas there is also the musician that is looking for that certain
sound,
> >> in which case he already has a preconceived notion of the type of sound
he
> >> is looking for.
> >
> >"whereas" implies that these two things are in opposition and mutually
> >exclusive. They're not.
>
> They are not mutually exclusive. This was not evident in my statement
> above.
They are not in opposition either.
> >> So you see nothing wrong with music compositions made by unfeeling
robots?
> >
> >Nope.
> >
>
> Of course personal preferences are of no concern to me.
Your question to which I responded suggests otherwise.
> >> How about one day if computerized vocals are added in, so that we have
> >> completely automated bands that make no sacrifice whatsoever, the
members of
> >> which have nothing in common with us, yet sing about "the human
condition?"
> >
> >Nope. Still no problem. What this has to do with music theory is beyond
> >me. Sounds like a good episode of Star Trek though.
> >
>
> Well it seems you are not aware of the implications of music theory.
Think
> hard, it might come to you after all.
The "implications". lol.
oh yeah....and I shouldn't "think hard". Thinking is what you are afraid
of.
Josh
joe
>>
>> Why study music theory if it doesn't emphasize (value) some chord
>> relationships over others?
>
>Because music theory does not and can not determine what chord relationship
>will have value or not have value for some as yet unwritten music.
>The value is determined by the writer in the context of the particularly
>music.
So basically music theory *does* have a value system.
>
>> If all relationships and chord structures were
>> deemed equivalent,
>
>I hasn't deemed any chord structure as equivalent or better or anything
>else.
>
To be understood hypothetically.
>
>The "value" of anything is determined in the context of the music being
>written or performed, by the person writing or performing it. It's not
>mandated before-hand by a monolithic theory policeman.
What genres of music does music theory cover? Mostly classical I figure, so
in that respect you are *limited* (good or bad) to the value systems of the
classical music realm.
>>
>> I'm not saying the variety of expression doesn't exist, I'm saying that
>> there is a limiting aspect of music theory.
>
>Yes, just like there's a limiting aspect to listening to music or learning
>how to play a chord.
exactly.
>
>> I've been told in this
>> newsgroup that sometimes people break the rules of music theory.
>
>You've been told repeatedly that there aren't any "rules" that music theory
>imposes on someone creating their own music. Any chord or note can go
>anywhere at anytime that the writer chooses to go with it. Music theory's
>job is to explain it in some rational manner.
Rules meaning the limitations based on the contexts on which they were a
property of.
>
>> Why is it that rules *are* broken when music theory does not limit at
all?
>We've
>> reached a contradiction.
>
>The term "rules" should appear in quotes as its' a euphemism used to dumb
>down a more complex proposition, and doesn't really exist.
>
>The very fact that these so called "rules" are "broken" anywhere and
>everywhere, at any time is just more evidence that these so called "rules"
>have no authority over you and never did. IOW...they aren't really "rules"
>in the first place, certainly not in the sense you are assuming.
>
Amen
>As have you. The difference though, is that you've done so while standing
>in a position of ignorance of what you're making up your mind about.
>
Actually I've been very enlightened on matters of music theory by others on
this newsgroup and have admitted my ignorance on some respects. I'm just
here for clarification.
>Josh
>
>
joe
>>
>> They are not mutually exclusive. This was not evident in my statement
>> above.
>
>They are not in opposition either.
Shirley they're not. Yoor write.
>
>> >> So you see nothing wrong with music compositions made by unfeeling
>robots?
>> >
>> >Nope.
>> >
>>
>> Of course personal preferences are of no concern to me.
>
>Your question to which I responded suggests otherwise.
>
Well *your* preference is of no concern to me. Giving such a short
thoughtless answer demonstrates your incapacity to contemplate the
implications of such events.
>> >> How about one day if computerized vocals are added in, so that we have
>> >> completely automated bands that make no sacrifice whatsoever, the
>members of
>> >> which have nothing in common with us, yet sing about "the human
>condition?"
>> >
>> >Nope. Still no problem. What this has to do with music theory is
beyond
>> >me. Sounds like a good episode of Star Trek though.
>> >
>>
>> Well it seems you are not aware of the implications of music theory.
>Think
>> hard, it might come to you after all.
>
>The "implications". lol.
>
>oh yeah....and I shouldn't "think hard". Thinking is what you are afraid
>of.
>
Well if you thought harder and actually written down your well formed ideas,
it would've been more entertaining.
>Josh
>
>
Josh Dougherty
>
> >>
> >> They are not mutually exclusive. This was not evident in my statement
> >> above.
> >
> >They are not in opposition either.
>
> Shirley they're not. Yoor write.
>
> >
> >> >> So you see nothing wrong with music compositions made by unfeeling
> >robots?
> >> >
> >> >Nope.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Of course personal preferences are of no concern to me.
> >
> >Your question to which I responded suggests otherwise.
> >
>
> Well *your* preference is of no concern to me. Giving such a short
> thoughtless answer demonstrates your incapacity to contemplate the
> implications of such events.
Maybe I'm just not that interested in contemplating the "implications" of
compositions being made by unfeeling robots. If that was what the thread
was about I probably wouldn't have responded.
> >> Well it seems you are not aware of the implications of music theory.
Think
> >> hard, it might come to you after all.
> >
> >The "implications". lol.
> >
> >oh yeah....and I shouldn't "think hard". Thinking is what you are afraid
> >of.
> >
>
> Well if you thought harder and actually written down your well formed
ideas,
> it would've been more entertaining.
Well, I like to make a distinction between someone thinking hard and
constructing well formed ideas, as opposed to the person who uses their
instincts and inspiration to write whatever they happen to type without all
that thinking getting in the way. The latter is much more respectable
because thinking hard and constructing well formed ideas limits what someone
can say.
Josh
Inotmark
>>this is of course untrue, as various elements such as ethos and associative
>>tonality create a symbolic musical lexicon which is also capable of
>>manipulation
>
>All of which are are expressed by the particular *combination* that the
>notes are placed in, including the silent note.
this is just false. you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
>Why study music theory if it doesn't emphasize (value) some chord
>relationships over others?
is blue more valuable than yellow? this is a ridiculous question.
>I'm not saying the variety of expression doesn't exist, I'm saying that
>there is a limiting aspect of music theory. I've been told in this
>newsgroup that sometimes people break the rules of music theory. Why is it
>that rules *are* broken when music theory does not limit at all? We've
>reached a contradiction.
this whole argument reminds me of poe's attack on chess. when read closely it
is quite clear he never learned how to play.
>>>The rules in this case are THE mode of expression whereas music
>>>theory describes certain combinations of notes/chords WITHIN THE MODE that
>>>it deems to have value.
>>
>>this again is really false. i don't know where you get such ideas. do you
>>know any music?
>>
>
>false as opposed to "really false." What do you mean "do I know music?"
>No, I haven't studied music theory intensively, but have been exposed to it.
>It's easy to dismiss, harder to argue against.
uhhh... i have heard arabic, but i certainly don't know it. your attacks on
music theory sound about like you have a similar level of understanding. if
you actually knew something you would be embarassed by the triviality of your
arguments.
Inotmark
>>>Music is a mostly emotional phenomena
>>
>>LOL
your statement is the disproof of your own attacks on music theory. you have a
value system which precludes understanding. by limiting music to emotions.
you somehow believe there cannot be a knowable structure attached to emotions.
this is a limitation both on your understanding of emotions and of music.
music is not a mostly emotional phenomenon, emotional expression is only one
small part of music.
>Glad to have made your day. Taken out of context, almost anything can be
>hilarious
what you are missing is that this is your context, and that context is your
limitation. you are projecting the limits of your own belief system onto music
theory because it might shed some light on something you wish to hold in
darkness.
enjoy.
Joey Goldstein
joe wrote:
>
>
> I like to limit my definition of "music theory" so it remains in the
> academic sphere.
Well then it's true. Academia may be harmful to certain musical
pursuits. It can be harmful to some people with a partucular mindset.
> Not to say "music theory" is an exclusive sphere from
> listing to the radio,
> sure they overlap, interact, but they are still two
> different entities.
There is a difference in merely listening to the radio and *studying*
what you listen to on the radio.
> So tell me in teaching music theory, do you go over the evolution of music
> itself?
It pops up occasionally.
> The Jimi Hendrix era, the punk era in Britain, the following
> postpunk era, the grunge scene in America, the interaction between music
> scenes in Britain and America, the significance of the band Nirvana in
> America, MTV's effect of limiting creativity, etc etc?
That is the evolution of popular rock music. I teach jazz guitar so that
stuff is outside of my sphere. But Ian seems to be attempting some sort
of a rock analysis technique which will have to include historically
important rock musicians I should think.
> Or do you teach about
> techniques used in classically composed pieces?
Sonmetimes, as they apply to playing jazz on the guitar.
> Not to say the study of the
> former is *better* than the latter, just trying to clarify what *I* mean.
>
> >
> >> but music theory approaches music from
> >> the technical vantage point to the end product being emotional response,
> >
> >Music theory rarely enters into the realm of emotion but it can.
> >
>
> that it *can* doesn't really say much for me. It just tells me how much
> you'd like music theory to encompass everything music. I'll agree it does
> in certain respects, mostly in the technical sense, but there are other
> things that music theory doesn't even touch. I'm sure you avoid certain
> peculiarities in music instead of wonder "why they exist" purely out of
> distaste.
I have no idea what you are talking about in the above paragraph. Sorry.
Composition for a master like Beethoven WAS effortless. But in order for
him to develop his musicality to get to the point where he could compose
effortlessly it did involve quite a bit of work, not sacrifice, work.
> Even more so if an automated composition surpassed works of Beethoven.
You can't "surpass" anybody's work. You can only offer up your own.
Music is about people and people are different. When Glenn Gould played
Bach it was a totally different experinece than when Horowitz played
Bach. Stravinsky is not a better or worse composer than Beethoven. They
are both masters.
> To
> me it would be the same as a worker in a car factory who for 20 years has
> labored and been proud of his contribution to auto manufacturing eventually
> being replaced by a more efficient and cheaper robot model.
That very scenario has been playing out in the music business for 20
years now. Where have you been? Life is about change and about surviving
that change.
> But what small
> price to pay for the possibility of much better music. (supposing that
> automated music composition is indeed possible)
>
> >> How about one day if computerized vocals are added in, so that we have
> >> completely automated bands that make no sacrifice whatsoever,
> >
> >Sacrifice? Is that what you want from your musicians? Geez. I don't want
> >to play in your band. Great musicians don't sacrifiece anything. They do
> >exactly what they want to all day long. To not be musicians would be the
> >sacrifice. Oi.
> >
>
> You've got me there. Sure there are labors to overcome in composing music
> but that is only the means toward the end. Artists gladly take small
> sacrifices to achieve higher things. I guess what I should've been pointing
> out instead was that the robots *don't care* whether we like their
> composition or not.
A robot that could pull off the task you are assigning it would have to
be capable of caring. That's why it is unlikely to happen. But if
someone pulls it off all the more power to them.
Joey Goldstein
joe wrote:
>
>
> Makes sense to me. No problems here. I just see the distinction between a
> person educated in music theory in school and an individual who discovers it
> through his own influences, mentors, experience. Sure at some levels they
> are the same, but also different. I'm not saying one is *better* than the
> other. Only the end product truly matters.
A musician who discovers his own very personal way of understanding
music is not as apt to be able to communicate his thoughts very well to
other musicians as a musician who has learned a common language with the
music community at large. Unless of course he opens up a music school
and teaches it to them.
joe
Inotmark wrote in message <20020127153030...@mb-ce.aol.com>...
>>From: "joe" wildb...@hotmail.com
>
>>>this is of course untrue, as various elements such as ethos and
associative
>>>tonality create a symbolic musical lexicon which is also capable of
>>>manipulation
>>
>>All of which are are expressed by the particular *combination* that the
>>notes are placed in, including the silent note.
>
>this is just false. you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
>
>>Why study music theory if it doesn't emphasize (value) some chord
>>relationships over others?
>
>is blue more valuable than yellow? this is a ridiculous question.
>
Actually I prefer blue over yellow myself. I think you've missed my point
entirely.
>>I'm not saying the variety of expression doesn't exist, I'm saying that
>>there is a limiting aspect of music theory. I've been told in this
>>newsgroup that sometimes people break the rules of music theory. Why is
it
>>that rules *are* broken when music theory does not limit at all? We've
>>reached a contradiction.
>
>this whole argument reminds me of poe's attack on chess. when read closely
it
>is quite clear he never learned how to play.
>
I'm not aware of poe's attack on chess, and do not care to know. I'd
probably assume he had some good points, seeing as he was such a great
writer.
>>>>The rules in this case are THE mode of expression whereas music
>>>>theory describes certain combinations of notes/chords WITHIN THE MODE
that
>>>>it deems to have value.
>>>
>>>this again is really false. i don't know where you get such ideas. do
you
>>>know any music?
>>>
>>
>>false as opposed to "really false." What do you mean "do I know music?"
>>No, I haven't studied music theory intensively, but have been exposed to
it.
>>It's easy to dismiss, harder to argue against.
>
>uhhh... i have heard arabic, but i certainly don't know it. your attacks
on
>music theory sound about like you have a similar level of understanding.
if
>you actually knew something you would be embarassed by the triviality of
your
>arguments.
And what exactly do you think my arguments against music theory is? I have
been exposed to actual music theory, meaning I've studied chord theory in
guitar, I know about the circle of fifths.
Inotmark
>And what exactly do you think my arguments against music theory is? I have
>been exposed to actual music theory, meaning I've studied chord theory in
>guitar, I know about the circle of fifths.
and i know about 2 or 3 syllables form the japanese alphabet. i guess that
makes us about equal. ooops, i am not saying things about japanese that i
don't understand.
>I'm not aware of poe's attack on chess, and do not care to know. I'd
>probably assume he had some good points, seeing as he was such a great
? talk about a non-sequitur ! so i guess hitler had some good points too
because he was a good orator? give me a break.
(hint: hitler has entered the thread, time to end it).
>Actually I prefer blue over yellow myself. I think you've missed my point
>entirely.
hardly. your point is a projection of your value system, one which is based on
ignorance as you inadvertently confessed above.
>I say *you* don't know what you're talking about. So there! That was easy.
except you admit the limitations of your knowledge, and therefore clearly don't
know anything.
if all this thread is an excuse to try and get people to explain something to
you give it up. if you don't study it you won't get it. I (and i imagine the
others around here) are not likely to do your homework for you. except for
silverman, he will be happy to force feed you.
joe
>
>> So tell me in teaching music theory, do you go over the evolution of
music
>> itself?
>
>It pops up occasionally.
Why is the evolution of music given so little attention? Is it because
there is no perceived value in it?
>
>> The Jimi Hendrix era, the punk era in Britain, the following
>> postpunk era, the grunge scene in America, the interaction between music
>> scenes in Britain and America, the significance of the band Nirvana in
>> America, MTV's effect of limiting creativity, etc etc?
>
>That is the evolution of popular rock music. I teach jazz guitar so that
>stuff is outside of my sphere. But Ian seems to be attempting some sort
>of a rock analysis technique which will have to include historically
>important rock musicians I should think.
>
The above events seem to have been given very little attention in the scope
of music theory. That's what I mean by limiting. But in your sense it may
be "focusing" on what you feel are the important areas in music such as
classical, jazz guitar, etc.
>> Or do you teach about
>> techniques used in classically composed pieces?
>
>Sonmetimes, as they apply to playing jazz on the guitar.
>
>> Not to say the study of the
>> former is *better* than the latter, just trying to clarify what *I* mean.
>>
>> >
>> >> but music theory approaches music from
>> >> the technical vantage point to the end product being emotional
response,
>> >
>> >Music theory rarely enters into the realm of emotion but it can.
>> >
>>
>> that it *can* doesn't really say much for me. It just tells me how much
>> you'd like music theory to encompass everything music. I'll agree it
does
>> in certain respects, mostly in the technical sense, but there are other
>> things that music theory doesn't even touch. I'm sure you avoid certain
>> peculiarities in music instead of wonder "why they exist" purely out of
>> distaste.
>
>I have no idea what you are talking about in the above paragraph. Sorry.
"doesn't even touch" referring to popular music for example.
>>
>> I'm getting the feeling that it doesn't matter in the end either. But
still
>> there seems something wrong with being able to compose acceptable music
so
>> effortlessly. It would make the labors of Beethoven and others seem
futile.
>
>Composition for a master like Beethoven WAS effortless. But in order for
>him to develop his musicality to get to the point where he could compose
>effortlessly it did involve quite a bit of work, not sacrifice, work.
I really can't believe that to be the truth. Why not stick to what you
know.
>
>> Even more so if an automated composition surpassed works of Beethoven.
>
>You can't "surpass" anybody's work. You can only offer up your own.
>Music is about people and people are different. When Glenn Gould played
>Bach it was a totally different experinece than when Horowitz played
>Bach. Stravinsky is not a better or worse composer than Beethoven. They
>are both masters.
It is certainly possible to surpass a body of work such that what was once
relevant has become obsolete. Of course it is also possibly that bodies of
work coexist together being equally or nearly equally impressive.
>
>> To
>> me it would be the same as a worker in a car factory who for 20 years has
>> labored and been proud of his contribution to auto manufacturing
eventually
>> being replaced by a more efficient and cheaper robot model.
>
>That very scenario has been playing out in the music business for 20
>years now. Where have you been? Life is about change and about surviving
>that change.
>
How so? Robots have been taking over the music industry? We certainly
*use* computers and such but that is not the same thing as a musician being
*replaced* by a robot. And if that were to happen, what exactly had
survived? Certainly not the musician.
>> But what small
>> price to pay for the possibility of much better music. (supposing that
>> automated music composition is indeed possible)
>>
>> >> How about one day if computerized vocals are added in, so that we have
>> >> completely automated bands that make no sacrifice whatsoever,
>> >
>> >Sacrifice? Is that what you want from your musicians? Geez. I don't want
>> >to play in your band. Great musicians don't sacrifiece anything. They do
>> >exactly what they want to all day long. To not be musicians would be the
>> >sacrifice. Oi.
>> >
>>
>> You've got me there. Sure there are labors to overcome in composing
music
>> but that is only the means toward the end. Artists gladly take small
>> sacrifices to achieve higher things. I guess what I should've been
pointing
>> out instead was that the robots *don't care* whether we like their
>> composition or not.
>
>A robot that could pull off the task you are assigning it would have to
>be capable of caring. That's why it is unlikely to happen. But if
>someone pulls it off all the more power to them.
I don't think it is necessary that a robot care about his composition.
There are certainly enough musicians who don't give a rat's ass about making
a creative and innovative musical piece and instead cater to what's tried
and true, basically plagiarize off of whatever music the people want.
Inotmark
>Composition for a master like Beethoven WAS effortless. But in order for
>him to develop his musicality to get to the point where he could compose
>effortlessly it did involve quite a bit of work, not sacrifice, work.
surely you jest?
joe
Joey Goldstein wrote in message <3C54666C...@nowhere.net>...
>
>
>joe wrote:
>>
>>
>> Makes sense to me. No problems here. I just see the distinction between
a
>> person educated in music theory in school and an individual who discovers
it
>> through his own influences, mentors, experience. Sure at some levels
they
>> are the same, but also different. I'm not saying one is *better* than
the
>> other. Only the end product truly matters.
>
>A musician who discovers his own very personal way of understanding
>music is not as apt to be able to communicate his thoughts very well to
>other musicians as a musician who has learned a common language with the
>music community at large. Unless of course he opens up a music school
>and teaches it to them.
>
And why does it matter if the musician is able to coherently express his
thoughts in the form of terms and concepts of music theory? Could he not
develop his own style, his own form of expression, and associate with the
non-academic music community? Have the Sex Pistols been able to aptly
express their take on music through the common language of music theory?
Dr.Matt
Joey Goldstein <joegoldATsympaticoDOTca> wrote:
>
>
>joe wrote:
>>
>>
>> Makes sense to me. No problems here. I just see the distinction between a
>> person educated in music theory in school and an individual who discovers it
>> through his own influences, mentors, experience. Sure at some levels they
>> are the same, but also different. I'm not saying one is *better* than the
>> other. Only the end product truly matters.
>
>A musician who discovers his own very personal way of understanding
>music is not as apt to be able to communicate his thoughts very well to
>other musicians as a musician who has learned a common language with the
>music community at large. Unless of course he opens up a music school
>and teaches it to them.
But see, getting back to the computer stuff that was brought up
before, this composer who re-invents the wheel from scratch but cannot
collaborate with other musicians to save her life is alive and well
today, and his name is legion: she's making MIDI files and getting
frustrated when he presents them as "Classical Music" and nobody takes
her seriously. Some of these people even spam our newsgroups
regularly.
joe
Inotmark wrote in message <20020127153446...@mb-ce.aol.com>...
>>From: "joe" wildb...@hotmail.com
>
>>>>Music is a mostly emotional phenomena
>>>
>>>LOL
>
>your statement is the disproof of your own attacks on music theory. you
have a
>value system which precludes understanding. by limiting music to emotions.
>you somehow believe there cannot be a knowable structure attached to
emotions.
Not so. You are reading too much into my poor sentence. Of course there
are technical aspects of music. I am not saying one should see music only
in the emotional sense and not try to encapsulate it via technical aspects.
Indeed it is very necessary to get into the technical detaisl. But there's
such thing as getting bogged down in technical details and missing the whole
"point."
Of course on the other hand it can also enlighten you to new paths in music
composition. What I want to know is do new forms/concepts in music *come
from* music theory or does it come from those without an intimate knowledge
of music theory (its concepts, terms, etc) eventually being *described* by
music theory.
>this is a limitation both on your understanding of emotions and of music.
>
>music is not a mostly emotional phenomenon, emotional expression is only
one
>small part of music.
Surely there are several aspects to a piece. But the major *purpose* is an
emotional response. There are things that go into music, but those things
are all to the effect of an emotional response.
>
>>Glad to have made your day. Taken out of context, almost anything can be
>>hilarious
>
>what you are missing is that this is your context, and that context is your
>limitation. you are projecting the limits of your own belief system onto
music
>theory because it might shed some light on something you wish to hold in
>darkness.
>
You first take my sentence out of context then insist that this *is* in fact
my context. Is this not a sort of intellectual bullying?
>enjoy.
joe
Inotmark wrote in message <20020127165432...@mb-ci.aol.com>...
>>rom: "joe" wildb...@hotmail.com
>
>>And what exactly do you think my arguments against music theory is? I
have
>>been exposed to actual music theory, meaning I've studied chord theory in
>>guitar, I know about the circle of fifths.
>
>and i know about 2 or 3 syllables form the japanese alphabet. i guess that
>makes us about equal. ooops, i am not saying things about japanese that i
>don't understand.
>
Ok so what am I missing in my view of music theory. Does it not try to
encapsulate the technical aspects of musical compositions? Does it not
offer value system(s)? Is there not the possibility to get bogged down in
technical details?
>>I'm not aware of poe's attack on chess, and do not care to know. I'd
>>probably assume he had some good points, seeing as he was such a great
>
>? talk about a non-sequitur ! so i guess hitler had some good points too
>because he was a good orator? give me a break.
That was not meant to be taken literally, but seeing as how all things
written here are taken word for word, I apologize for allowing my personal
preference enter into the discussion. Hitler may have been a great orator
but he was insane in the membrane.
>
>(hint: hitler has entered the thread, time to end it).
>
>>Actually I prefer blue over yellow myself. I think you've missed my point
>>entirely.
>
>hardly. your point is a projection of your value system, one which is
based on
>ignorance as you inadvertently confessed above.
>
So by my choosing blue over yellow I am missing out on all the wonderful
possibilities of yellow. I'll take note of that.
>>I say *you* don't know what you're talking about. So there! That was
easy.
>
>except you admit the limitations of your knowledge, and therefore clearly
don't
>know anything.
>
I know my limitations, yes, and I freely admit them. So how does admitting
the limitations of one's knowledge lead to not knowing anything? I guess
you'll have nothing to do with logic as long as you can make great sweeping
generalizations.
>if all this thread is an excuse to try and get people to explain something
to
>you give it up. if you don't study it you won't get it. I (and i imagine
the
>others around here) are not likely to do your homework for you. except for
>silverman, he will be happy to force feed you.
I'm merely clarifying myself.
Inotmark
>What I want to know is do new forms/concepts in music *come
>from* music theory
yes
> But the major *purpose* is an
>emotional response
>There are things that go into music, but those things
>are all to the effect of an emotional response.
(LOL again)
>You first take my sentence out of context then insist that this *is* in fact
>my context. Is this not a sort of intellectual bullying?
youv'e now stated it three times in absolute terms. seems it is your context.
Inotmark
>Ok so what am I missing in my view of music theory.
about 99%.
Does it not try to
>encapsulate the technical aspects of musical compositions?
part of what it does
> Does it not
>offer value system(s)?
in and of itself, no.
> Is there not the possibility to get bogged down in
>technical details?
possibility exists of getting bogged down in lots of stuff.
>So by my choosing blue over yellow I am missing out on all the wonderful
>possibilities of yellow. I'll take note of that.
substitute emotion for blue and everything else music does for yellow and you
have a chance.
>>>I say *you* don't know what you're talking about. So there! That was
>easy.
>>
>>except you admit the limitations of your knowledge, and therefore clearly
>don't
>>know anything.
>>
>>if all this thread is an excuse to try and get people to explain something
>to
>>you give it up. if you don't study it you won't get it. I (and i imagine
>the
>>others around here) are not likely to do your homework for you. except for
>>silverman, he will be happy to force feed you.
>
>I'm merely clarifying myself.
you have made it clear all right. do your homework.
Josh Dougherty
>
> Inotmark wrote in message <20020127165432...@mb-ci.aol.com>...
> >>rom: "joe" wildb...@hotmail.com
> >
> >>And what exactly do you think my arguments against music theory is? I
have
> >>been exposed to actual music theory, meaning I've studied chord theory
in
> >>guitar, I know about the circle of fifths.
> >
> >and i know about 2 or 3 syllables form the japanese alphabet. i guess
that
> >makes us about equal. ooops, i am not saying things about japanese that
i
> >don't understand.
> >
>
> Ok so what am I missing in my view of music theory.
Everyone's already told you, and its' too much to list. If you want to
know, you have to study it and learn something. We're not here to do your
homework for you.
> Does it not try to
> encapsulate the technical aspects of musical compositions? Does it not
> offer value system(s)?
What it does not do is make your choices for you.
> Is there not the possibility to get bogged down in
> technical details?
It's possible to get bogged down in anything including "emotion". So what?
Josh
Joey Goldstein
joe wrote:
>
> >
> >> So tell me in teaching music theory, do you go over the evolution of
> music
> >> itself?
> >
> >It pops up occasionally.
>
> Why is the evolution of music given so little attention? Is it because
> there is no perceived value in it?
I've already explained that to you but you don't listen. Do a search at
Google in this group with the keywords "race car driver".
Are you interested in the evolution of music? It is a pretty fascinating
and sweeping subject. It requires serious study and is ripe with
theoretical concepts about music throughout the ages. I am somewhat
interested in the evolution of music but I have only one lifetime and
have decided to try to learn as much as I can about playing jazz on the
guitar in this one.
> >> The Jimi Hendrix era, the punk era in Britain, the following
> >> postpunk era, the grunge scene in America, the interaction between music
> >> scenes in Britain and America, the significance of the band Nirvana in
> >> America, MTV's effect of limiting creativity, etc etc?
> >
> >That is the evolution of popular rock music. I teach jazz guitar so that
> >stuff is outside of my sphere. But Ian seems to be attempting some sort
> >of a rock analysis technique which will have to include historically
> >important rock musicians I should think.
> >
>
> The above events seem to have been given very little attention in the scope
> of music theory. That's what I mean by limiting. But in your sense it may
> be "focusing" on what you feel are the important areas in music such as
> classical, jazz guitar, etc.
I don't teach much about Indian classical music either or about how to
play the Gamelon. What's your point? And it is your own scope that is
limiting not the scope of music history.
I am. You are not. And you're not listening.
> >> Even more so if an automated composition surpassed works of Beethoven.
> >
> >You can't "surpass" anybody's work. You can only offer up your own.
> >Music is about people and people are different. When Glenn Gould played
> >Bach it was a totally different experinece than when Horowitz played
> >Bach. Stravinsky is not a better or worse composer than Beethoven. They
> >are both masters.
>
> It is certainly possible to surpass a body of work such that what was once
> relevant has become obsolete.
Not in art. You haven't got a clue. Scientific theories can become
obsolete. Theories of music can become obsolete. But great music is
great music in any time. That's why people do it. It's a grasp at
immortality.
Put in terms even YOU might undrerstand.
Is Beck better than Clapton? Was Hendrix the best? Isn't Yingvie faster?
Doesn't he make Clapton obsolete? What about Eddie? Answer: They are all great.
Is Bob Dylan better than Paul Simon? Didn't Bruce Springsteen make them obsolete?
Weren't the Stones better than the Beatles?
Answer: They are all great and nobody is obsolete.
Did Beethoven make Bach obsolete? Gimme a break.
> Of course it is also possibly that bodies of
> work coexist together being equally or nearly equally impressive.
>
> >
> >> To
> >> me it would be the same as a worker in a car factory who for 20 years has
> >> labored and been proud of his contribution to auto manufacturing
> eventually
> >> being replaced by a more efficient and cheaper robot model.
> >
> >That very scenario has been playing out in the music business for 20
> >years now. Where have you been? Life is about change and about surviving
> >that change.
> >
>
> How so? Robots have been taking over the music industry? We certainly
> *use* computers and such but that is not the same thing as a musician being
> *replaced* by a robot.
Of course it is. Broadway shows, film score, jingles, etc. are being
performed every day by sequencers. I.e. No musicians except the
composer. Musicians used to have jobs doing these things.
> And if that were to happen, what exactly had
> survived? Certainly not the musician.
You're not making any sense, to me anyway.
Look, Joe, it's obvious that you are a troll. Probably the nicest most
well beahved troll I've ever yet encountered on usenet. Waltzing into a
music theory discussion group and pronouncing how useless music theory
is can only be an invitation for a fight. It's like walking into a gay
bar and screaming fag. You've been very civilized and all that and have
made yourself appear to be open minded but it is clear that all you want
to do is argue and your mind is actually quite closed. And as others
have said you ARE arguing from a position of ignorance. Even you readily
admit that you don't know much about music theory yet when we tell you
all the cool things it's good for you say that we don't know what WE are
talking about. So what's the point of talking to you? Your motto seems
to be: "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up." For all I know
you might be a computer program programmed to argue on usenet.
Joey Goldstein
No I believe that. I believe that when a great composer like Beethoven
sat down to put his pen on the paper for the final draft of a work that
it was essentially an effortless act for him. He heard it in his head
and he wrote it down. All the hard work was done well before then, the
hard work that allowed him to hear that masterpiece so effortlessly.
Certainly in order to play or improvise music well the whole process
must *become* effortless. You can't be going on stage and be struggling
with your material. I know that my best compositions have just come to
me, and then I wrote them down. I have also taken a more laborious
course and have struggled to manipulate a theme or two to my will and
the results are rarely as satisfying.
Certainly when I'm improvising any effort to play great just gets in the
way. I've spent a lot of time practicing how to get out of the way so
that the process can be effortless.
Joey Goldstein
joe wrote:
>
> Joey Goldstein wrote in message <3C54666C...@nowhere.net>...
> >
> >
> >joe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Makes sense to me. No problems here. I just see the distinction between
> a
> >> person educated in music theory in school and an individual who discovers
> it
> >> through his own influences, mentors, experience. Sure at some levels
> they
> >> are the same, but also different. I'm not saying one is *better* than
> the
> >> other. Only the end product truly matters.
> >
> >A musician who discovers his own very personal way of understanding
> >music is not as apt to be able to communicate his thoughts very well to
> >other musicians as a musician who has learned a common language with the
> >music community at large. Unless of course he opens up a music school
> >and teaches it to them.
> >
>
> And why does it matter if the musician is able to coherently express his
> thoughts in the form of terms and concepts of music theory? Could he not
> develop his own style, his own form of expression, and associate with the
> non-academic music community?
Of course. But he would be LIMITED to that community.
> Have the Sex Pistols been able to aptly
> express their take on music through the common language of music theory?
Sure. But they were extremely LIMITED in the scope of their music, the
people they could play with, and the people who they could draw on as
musical influences. But that's exactly what they wanted.
If you want to make music like the Sex Pistols did then do you think the
path is to study what they did? Their music was based on remaining as
ignorant about as many things musical as they could as well as about as
many things about life as they could. They were a gang of suicidal
anarchists basically. Their philosphy was to remain as ignorant about
music as they possibly could (although they did tune up occasionally)
and their sound was a good example of what that philosphy can produce.
If playing punk on a philosophical par with the Sex Pistols is your goal
then you can't even stoop to studying THEM, now can you?
The wonder about the Sex Pistols is that they managed to garner such a
wide audience which to me was a pretty sad thing at the time. So many
people with such bad taste and manners. Where do they come from? There
was a sad comical genius about them though from a show biz perspective.
Me? I'd rather listen to a robot compose Bach chorales.
Inotmark
>No I believe that. I believe that when a great composer like Beethoven
>sat down to put his pen on the paper for the final draft of a work that
>it was essentially an effortless act for him. He heard it in his head
>and he wrote it down.
well, then you need to check out some of beethoven's sketchbooks, and even the
history of his scores which were often changed even while already at the
publishers. your evaluation is pure fantasy.
Joey Goldstein
Perhaps. But yet there are people who claim that the process I describe
is an important facet in their music making, especially in the field of
improvised music. Whether the compositional process was actually an
effortless affair for Beethoven or whether he was struggling terribly
throughout the process remains to be seen I suppose. It certainly
doesn't sound like he was struggling to me.
Stravinsky made many modifications to the Firebird too. It was also one
of his least favorite works, possibly because he was still struggling to
find his composional technique and his own voice when he wrote it.
Perhaps he was his best critic after all.
Still, I have to believe that the essence of a great work of art, the
inspiration for it, comes more or less effortlessly, after a long period
of gestation of course. With a major orchestral work the details still
need to be worked on well after the essential piece has been composed
though. A composer who is still struggling with his materials would be a
bit of a scammer in trying to convince the World that he had produced a
masterpiece, don't you think? Now I love the Firebird but I can see
Stravinsky's point too.
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>
>Inotmark wrote in message <20020127153446...@mb-ce.aol.com>...
>>>From: "joe" wildb...@hotmail.com
>>
>>>>>Music is a mostly emotional phenomena
>>>>
>>>>LOL
>>
>>your statement is the disproof of your own attacks on music theory. you
>have a
>>value system which precludes understanding. by limiting music to emotions.
>>you somehow believe there cannot be a knowable structure attached to
>emotions.
>
>Not so. You are reading too much into my poor sentence.
I had the probably mistaken impression it was a jibe about your Greek.
>What I want to know is do new forms/concepts in music *come
>from* music theory or does it come from those without an intimate knowledge
>of music theory (its concepts, terms, etc) eventually being *described* by
>music theory.
Now suppose someone does something new... would you be able to
determine whether this did or did not come from music theory? How
would you test such a proposition? Myself, practically speaking, I can
not make a distinction.
>>this is a limitation both on your understanding of emotions and of music.
>>
>>music is not a mostly emotional phenomenon, emotional expression is only
>one
>>small part of music.
>
>Surely there are several aspects to a piece. But the major *purpose* is an
>emotional response. There are things that go into music, but those things
>are all to the effect of an emotional response.
I dunno. I just compose.
--
Samuel
Concert XXIX - 'Cello Chaos'. Geoffrey Gartner, Cello plays new works by Dutch and Australian
composers, and legendary modern cello classics by Ginastera and Helmut Lachenmann. Come and get
a *** FREE *** Damien Ricketson CD featuring Ensemble Musikfabrik, Diego Masson, Claire Edwardes,
James Nightingale, Carl Rosman and the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra directed by David Porcelijn!!!
Jan 27, 20:30, at Posthoornkerk, Amsterdam (Haarlemmer Houttuinen 47) ** FREE ** CD ** FREE **
Samuel Vriezen
Actually, when I write Beethoven's 5th it's quite an effortless
exercise for me as well. Still time-consuming, though.
Dr.Matt
Joey Goldstein <joegoldATsympaticoDOTca> wrote:
>
>
>Inotmark wrote:
>>
>> >From: Joey Goldstein nos...@nowhere.net
>>
>> >No I believe that. I believe that when a great composer like Beethoven
>> >sat down to put his pen on the paper for the final draft of a work that
>> >it was essentially an effortless act for him. He heard it in his head
>> >and he wrote it down.
>>
>> well, then you need to check out some of beethoven's sketchbooks, and even the
>> history of his scores which were often changed even while already at the
>> publishers. your evaluation is pure fantasy.
>
>Perhaps. But yet there are people who claim that the process I describe
>is an important facet in their music making, especially in the field of
>improvised music. Whether the compositional process was actually an
>effortless affair for Beethoven or whether he was struggling terribly
>throughout the process remains to be seen I suppose. It certainly
>doesn't sound like he was struggling to me.
I've read some of the carefully crossed out sketches to the 5th symphony.
The dude wrote about 5 bars of music for every bar that he kept.
>Stravinsky made many modifications to the Firebird too. It was also one
>of his least favorite works, possibly because he was still struggling to
>find his composional technique and his own voice when he wrote it.
>Perhaps he was his best critic after all.
There's other factors involved, mostly related with copyright law.
NB that in Firebird Stravinsky continued a long tradition of building
pieces around the melodies in Rimsky-Korsakov's 101 Lithuanian Folksongs,
using chromatic lines to represent supernatural beings, etc... All
part and parcel of Russian music...
>Still, I have to believe that the essence of a great work of art, the
>inspiration for it, comes more or less effortlessly, after a long period
>of gestation of course.
I'm sure that for some people, once that belief takes hold, there's no
shaking it with facts.... :)
And you can hide just about everything behind that "long period of
gestation".... Richard Hoffmann c.1985 had this to say about it:
"You hold it all in until it is ready to come out and then you get it
all out on paper mindlessly. And then you wipe your ass with it."
> With a major orchestral work the details still
>need to be worked on well after the essential piece has been composed
>though.
Hmmm, I don't work that way. I write orchestral music directly into score.
> A composer who is still struggling with his materials would be a
>bit of a scammer in trying to convince the World that he had produced a
>masterpiece, don't you think?
Okay, so then all the great composers were scammers? Struggling with
the material is what enables us to go beyond the mundane to the rare
and stupendous.
> Now I love the Firebird but I can see
>Stravinsky's point too.
Firebird was Stravinsky's first big commercial success. I'm not up on
the full tale of what he was composing prior to that, but he was
accompanying Ballets Russes and pulled together Firebird quickly, as a
substitute composer for Liadov who had requested twice as much time.
Liadov was no slouch and cranked out a lot of music, some of it sounding
suspiciously like Firebird (but before Firebird), Petruchka (but before
Petruchka, and the Rite (but before the Rite)--and those points of commonality
can usually be traced to the Rimsky collection.
>--
>Joey Goldstein
>Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
>Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
>Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
joe
Inotmark wrote in message <20020127180413...@mb-fb.aol.com>...
>>From: "joe" wildb...@hotmail.com
>
>>Ok so what am I missing in my view of music theory.
>
>about 99%.
>
Really, then why is it that you agree with the statements below?
> Does it not try to
>>encapsulate the technical aspects of musical compositions?
>
>part of what it does
>
Ok
>> Does it not
>>offer value system(s)?
>
>in and of itself, no.
>
But it does offer values sytems in the various contexts that they are used
so basically yes.
>> Is there not the possibility to get bogged down in
>>technical details?
>
>possibility exists of getting bogged down in lots of stuff.
>
Sure, but that doesn't make it any less true in this particular case.
>>So by my choosing blue over yellow I am missing out on all the wonderful
>>possibilities of yellow. I'll take note of that.
>
>substitute emotion for blue and everything else music does for yellow and
you
>have a chance.
>
I'd like to know what this other *world* of music that emotion is only such
a small part of is. Or am I too ignorant or too stupid to comprehend such
complexities as you've pointed out many many times.
>
>>>>I say *you* don't know what you're talking about. So there! That was
>>easy.
>>>
>>>except you admit the limitations of your knowledge, and therefore clearly
>>don't
>>>know anything.
>>>
>
>>>if all this thread is an excuse to try and get people to explain
something
>>to
>>>you give it up. if you don't study it you won't get it. I (and i
imagine
>>the
>>>others around here) are not likely to do your homework for you. except
for
>>>silverman, he will be happy to force feed you.
>>
>>I'm merely clarifying myself.
>
>you have made it clear all right. do your homework.
Made what clear? Huh?
>