PDA

View Full Version : theory: good, bad, or ugly?



Bizarro
12-19-2002, 06:55 AM
I've noticed several forum members really working hard on understanding theory and applying it to music that they're working on. Sometimes it can get overwhelming!

I do have a major problem (no pun intended) with music theory. It's not so much the theory itself (if you're a "math" type of person, it's actually very straightforward). It's what you do with the theory, or let it do to you by imposing limitations (for example, some people don't want to leave the major scale, no matter what happens!)

From my perspective, it all comes down to this: Theory is about music, but music is NOT about theory.

Theory is a tool, and quite possibly the quickest path towards becoming an accomplished musician. It should not limit your options; it should open new doors. And you can't forget to trust your ears!

badgas
12-19-2002, 11:31 AM
I've been playing music for quite a while, Bizarro.
Was kept busy learning other peoples songs, on the road for months at a time.
I retired from live shows about ten years ago and since then I've come to realize that I didn't accomplish squat. I've written around two hundred songs, sure, but they were based on what I knew. Other peoples music.

Now I'm trying to play catch up. Math has always been a problem for me but I use calculaters now.

Your statement, "Theory is about music, but music is NOT about theory." is so very true. I was about music. I thought theory was only for classical music.

It's people like you, szulc, Bongo, Gunni, Eric and the others here who people like me look for advice and answers to our neverending list of questions.

I've been into recording my music for the past few years and have found that it'stinks. My music, that is.
I've been around some theory boards for the past few months and this one is really good.
I've learned more here than I have from all the other places.

In the short time I've been learning theory, I've rewritten a few of my songs and am working on a classical type song now. It's opened up new insight and creativness.

Now I'm 'trying' to be about theory to advance my own songwriting and music compostion.

I can really relate to your post and the comment you made.
I don't know the point of this reply, only that I want to say it. I guess I hope it does to you and Eric and szulc and Bongo and the others, what your sharing of knowledge that you guys have done for me. I feel good reading y'alls stuff.

Yes, it is overwhelming and sometimes very confusing, but the more I learn the more the new becomes understandable that much quicker.
I wish there were home computers and bbs' like this one back in the 1950s and 1960s when I was growing up and learning to play.
I envy the youth of today with their access to bbs like this one.

I'm done.
~ pant, pant ~

szulc
12-19-2002, 12:51 PM
From my perspective, it all comes down to this: Theory is about music, but music is NOT about theory.
This is a truly beautiful statement.
Theory is a tool you use to extract the knowable (sp?) from a complex art form.
Like life itself, much less is known than unknown.

Bongo Boy
12-19-2002, 04:02 PM
Hadn't thought about it too much, but another way to view it is that what we call theory is, in a way, a nice model that's been built to understand music. It's similar to the way we build models of all our other artifacts (such as cars, airplanes, economic systems, feedback and control mechanisms, cities, etc).

I'm not comfortable with the use of the term 'theory' in the context 'music theory'. Theories are models of how stuff works (to me that's the definition), and I'm not sure yet that's quite what music theory does (as we commonly use the term).

Chim_Chim
12-19-2002, 06:12 PM
Theories are models of how stuff works (to me that's the definition), and I'm not sure yet that's quite what music theory does (as we commonly use the term).

Right,but it does open doors as Bizarro says and there are so many options you discover when you start advancing that perhaps the non-theorist might not otherwise be aware of or "as" aware of.

Bongo Boy
12-19-2002, 06:46 PM
This is a tough topic to leave alone...


Right,but it does open doorsYes, I agree completely...it's not that music theory isn't useful. Hardly. It's that music maybe isn't a 'machine' or a 'process' that 'works', necessarily. Another way to put it: music theory as I understand it so far is just one way to understand the artifact of music--it gets you a lot, but it may not be provide the best explanation of why a particular piece of music 'works', and it may not be the fastest way to get to the desired result--not every time, for sure.

Again I use fine art as an example: if an oil painting moves us, elicits an emotion--few of us are bothered if someone can't explain why. Conversely, if I slap some paint on the canvas, make a bunch of 'mistakes', work around them, and when I'm done it puts a huge smile on my face--it was a success. It's likely that no amount of graphic arts theory would have gotten me there.

If the painting feels wrong somehow, feels heavy, unbalanced or lop-sided and I'm unhappy with it--imagine how useful it would be to have learned, from 'theory', that yes, of course your eye is drawn to that huge white thing on the right--away from what I wanted to be the main theme. In 7000 years of civilization, we've learned about the effects that color, size, position, shape, etc., have on our sense of balance (as an example). Let's use it.

Bringing it back to music--at the simplest level of theory knowledge--if I wanted a serious, balald-like or somber feel and instead got something that feels light & celebratory--hey, theory would have told me that was going to happen and would have saved me a lot of heartbreak.

So...it's all good.

Bongo Boy
12-19-2002, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by badgas I envy the youth of today with their access to bbs like this one.It's a wonderful resource, and I'm happy to have it. On the other hand--past generations in this* culture had, I think, more immersion in true folk music. Live, no-kidding, mom, dad, grampa, the aunts and uncles playing, singing and dancing as part of everyday life.

The world of music for many seems reduced to whatever some clod at corporate decided could be produced and processed profitably with the 12 radio programming companies Thank goodness for sites such as this one and the our ability to do independent recording cheaply!

Sorry! I wasn't trying to 'out-rant' you!!

*By "this" culture I mean the relatively Euro-centric, or "Western" one represented by the active members, the instruments and the music discussed here.

Zatz
12-19-2002, 07:05 PM
Hi all!

Philisophical discussion y'know... The whole issue is all about the way we perceive life.

There is an expression "synthesis by analysis" which is an answer to the what-so-good-about-theory question here.

It's oh so great to express feelings without ever thinking of quantum transition of notes in Powertab environment but when we get to compose, to create something new we have to base it upon what we already know (just like you can't imagine 4th dimension), what we've experienced, felt, loved, hated etc. This is where we come limited!

Theory is just a tool enabling us to expand our view, assume, foresee what we don't know yet for sure, move forward. How can we know the mass of the Sun? Ever been there and felt enormous gravity?

Besides that is a great communicational mean between people interested in the subject, it's a knowledge format, clue to what's been already explained and understood.

Water can still quench my thirst despite my knowledge of its chemical formula.

Warm regards,
Zatz.

Bongo Boy
12-19-2002, 07:11 PM
Very good, Zatz. Beer was brewed for hundreds of years before the existence of yeast was even known. BUT, what an enormous, wonderful world of beer can be created once you not only know about yeast, but understand it.

Okay, sure. Water's pretty important too. :D

Zatz
12-19-2002, 07:21 PM
:D Yeah, Bongo Boy!
Beer is even better than music theory and can quench thirst even faster! :D I worship this Nectar the secret of which is beyond my coprehension! You know it and you are really great man! :)

Cheers to all at IBreathe!

Zatz.

PS: Damn, where did I get my last bottle?

Bongo Boy
12-19-2002, 07:34 PM
Hmmmmm...someone's in a good mood. Perhaps the Music Theory forum actually needed a Music and Brewing sub-topic area?
I worship this Nectar the secret of which is beyond my coprehension!.I'm thinking if you can handle the computer modeling of plasma dispersion physics, you can probably comprehend beer. That's what I'm thinking.

szulc
12-19-2002, 07:38 PM
So is your preffered brew Lager or Ale?

Bongo Boy
12-19-2002, 07:48 PM
I'll try not to get started on this topic!!! Ale, by far. I've made what I think are some fine Pilseners and I truly enjoy them--but I'm definitely a pale ale guy.

The water here in Colorado Springs is about as close to the analysis of Pilsen water as you could get without building it yourself (or going there), so it's just perfect for that particular style of lager. We have to tweak it with gypsum here to get good ale, especially for the stouts and porters (Burton-on-Trent water, that sort of thing).

Damn!!!!! You got me started.

Chim_Chim
12-19-2002, 08:12 PM
abstract:

if I slap some paint on the canvas, make a bunch of 'mistakes', work around them, and when I'm done it puts a huge smile on my face--it was a success.

Jackson Pollock(sp?) theory?


disproportion:

If the painting feels wrong somehow, feels heavy, unbalanced or lop-sided and I'm unhappy with it--imagine how useful it would be to have learned, from 'theory', that yes, of course your eye is drawn to that huge white thing on the right--away from what I wanted to be the main theme.

Picasso theory ?


and...

Hmmmmm...someone's in a good mood. Perhaps the Music Theory forum actually needed a Music and Brewing sub-topic area?

Beer Theory ! (yeah!!!!) :D

So...it's all good.

Cheers to all at IBreathe!

Cheers,

Chim_chim

Chim_Chim
12-19-2002, 08:18 PM
theory: good, bad, or ugly?


Conclusion: ...Beer Good

Bongo Boy
12-19-2002, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Chim_Chim
Jackson Pollock...theory?Yes!! Need it be more complicated? Witnesseth, the Jackson Pollock toolkit:

szulc
12-19-2002, 10:28 PM
No rows returned!
Your assertion has caused an illegal exception error, so Zero rows were returned. There was no key defined.

Bongo Boy
12-19-2002, 11:07 PM
You may need to briefly research Jackson Pollock. These were the tools of HIS trade...and he produced extraordinary results with them. I probably had a point at the time.

Chim_Chim
12-19-2002, 11:48 PM
:D

Torin
12-20-2002, 03:51 AM
okay, i understand theory to some degree. i understand alcohol to an even greater degree... however i've got no idea how theory links with playing "out of the mode".
one classic (metal) example of this is marty friedman and jason becker as cacophony on their self titled album. the song is titled "the ninja" and after all the typical build-up about five mins into the song they rip it up playing this freaked out stuff that harmonizes but you can kinda tell it's 'out' too... can someone help me with how to learn this !?

Bizarro
12-20-2002, 04:06 AM
Wow, this thread really took off! Thanks to everyone for really great comments and sharing your thoughts. :D

badgas
12-20-2002, 04:06 AM
I believe beer is made up of 12 natural ingredients.
The major one being water, hops, sugar, yeast.
Then we have the minor ones.
If we fix up a scale out of this would it be possible to flaten the sugar to a minor 3rd, so I could play music and get the effects of drinking a pint of stout without having to stop?
It's not really important, but I was curious. :eek:

Chim_Chim
12-20-2002, 04:11 AM
Hi,

Cool Song!

I know what part you mean but have no clue how to answer your question.I can play the intro and a little bit beyond maybe but don't know what those two were up to there.

Another cool part from the same album is on the song Desert Island...the Hawaiian sounding interlude part is so beautiful IMO!

Bongo Boy
12-20-2002, 05:02 AM
Jeeezus...are you guys kiddin' me? WTFO?

szulc
12-20-2002, 05:13 AM
What does the O mean in WTFO?

badgas
12-20-2002, 11:26 AM
I think the 'O' means Oklahoma.

Were,
They,
From,
Oklahoma?

I think.

Bongo Boy
12-21-2002, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by szulc
What does the O mean in WTFO? WTF, over?

From my military days.

szulc
12-21-2002, 03:00 AM
This is Bravo Foxtrot Oscar Mike
Reading you Lima Charlie.
Over.

sarel_aiber
02-13-2003, 09:52 AM
After the thread has taken off in many different directions, I think I'm ready to add my 2 cents :)

For a couple of years I was just tinkering with music -- I got myself a classical guitar and played some popular songs on it. Basically, I was guided by instinct -- I knew what I was looking for, it just took some searching the right chord, for instance.

Now I moved to the piano, which seems to fit my personality better. However, I've also gone quite a bit into theory.

But I only got into theory because I started Ear Training. In order to make sense of what I was hearing, I needed to be able to name components of music. And that's the whole point for me:

Music theory is a way to conceptualize about music for different purposes: Composition, Arrangement, Ear Training etc.

Human beings perceive things as abstractions. You won't get very far talking about single notes, so you have to internalize the concept of chords. You want to know which chords to use in a song's accompaniment (or alternatively, which notes to improvise with over a given chord progression), so you have to internalize the concept of a key.

For me, it started with -- I want to know how to play a melody I can sing -- so I had to learn about keys, scale degrees and how to hear their qualities.

Apart from the few people who talk about music theory becuase it interests them on the pure intellectual level, knowing the theory is just a prerequisite to why you've learned it at all -- if it's ear training, then it's not enough to know what diatonic triads are built on different scale degrees -- after you know that you have to teach yourself to hear them as well. Similarly with other ventures requiring theory (improvisation, for instance).

And again, ear training, which is something I build over music theory, is just another stepping stone for my current ultimate goal -- being able to play by ear perfectly. We just keep building new constructs out of smaller building blocks. And once the new construct is familiar and totally assimilated by us -- it can become a building block in its own right to make a new construction.

But it's all possible because you know music theory -- you can essentially talk about music (even if it's only a conversation with yourself).

Hope I haven't made you all go to sleep :o

Started off with 2 cents, grew into a major investment ;)

Cheers,
Sarel

the1andonly
02-19-2003, 04:48 AM
I think a lot of people have a misconception about music theory. a lot of people here seem to think that music theory says things like "these notes are right, you should play them. but these notes are wrong. don't play them" and a lot of people think that this is why music theory can limit creativity. it you look at it this way, it can be stifling to your creativity. but there is no right and wrong in music theory. there are notes that are called 'consonant' which sound inside, and pretty. and then there are 'dissonant' notes whic sound outside, and not as pretty. both are equally essential parts of creating music. music theory just helps you understand why things sound the way they do, and to me, that makes composing much easier.


here's a bit of music theory from arnold schoenburg(early 1900s classical composer and theorist) that never really caught on called 'regional harmony' it's a really complex idea, but I'll try to explain the gist of it.

let's say you're playing in the Key of C major. if you want to sound a little bit outside the scale, you barrow chords from scales in the next region, which each share 6 notes with the C major scale: F major / D minor , and G major / E minor. also, due to pitch axis, C minor is usually considered in this first region as well, as an exception to the 6 note rule.. then the second region sounds more outside, and shares only 5 notes and they are D major / B minor, Bb major / G minor. this process continues through other regions, each one sounding more distant and remote and outside

Third Region: Eb Major, A major/F# minor
Fourth Region: Ab Major / F minor, E major / C# minor
Fifth region: B major / G# minor, C# major / Bb minor, F# Major / Eb minor

when playing through these, the closer regions are, the more inside and smooth and cossonant they sound. so when playing in the fifth region, instead of jumping back to the tonic(C), you might play chords from the fourth, then third, then second, then first regions before going back. but skipping regions it totally acceptable. they all have different sounds, and you just have to explore to find what you like.

szulc
02-20-2003, 01:43 PM
See this thread for more about the regions.

http://www.ibreathemusic.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=249&highlight=speaking+in

Oceano
03-20-2003, 02:18 PM
Put it this way,

Your brain will never overload with information, therefore you can learn WHATEVER you want.

I emphasize whatever, because it is a personal choice. It's not mandatory, but if you want to learn it, go ahead.

Obviuosly, if your goal is to maybe bacome a guitar teacher, studio musician, go more into a jazz, or fusion field, it will be good to learn it, because then you will be able to understand the "languge" that is spoken in those areas.

I think Al Di Meola, has the best advice in this area. He said that theory is something one should learn, and then throw it away when one starts making music.

Bizarro
03-21-2003, 03:10 AM
I think Al Di Meola, has the best advice in this area. He said that theory is something one should learn, and then throw it away when one starts making music.

That's a great quote. It also describes how I approach soloing. My guitar doesn't even have "face dots" so I never know what fret I'm on when onstage! I just play whatever pops into my head. Of course, sometimes I fall flat on my face and sometimes I surprise myself!:D

szulc
03-22-2003, 04:58 PM
He was actually paraphrasing Charlie Parker's famous quote:

"First , master your instrument. Then, forget all that SH#@ and play!"

Which is a great philosophy, but much easier to say than to do.

I like to use the term "ZEN GUITAR", for playing with an empty mind.

Just play, with as little thought as possible, let your sub-conscious guide you. This is, of coarse, much more likely to be expressive is you have first "mastered your instrument" (What ever that means!), or at least spent some time familiarizing yourself with the strengths and weakness of your technique.

szulc
03-22-2003, 04:59 PM
He was actually paraphrasing Charlie Parker's famous quote:

"First , master your instrument. Then, forget all that SH#@ and play!"

Which is a great philosophy, but much easier to say than to do.

I like to use the term "ZEN GUITAR", for playing with an empty mind.

Just play, with as little thought as possible, let your sub-conscious guide you. This is, of coarse, much more likely to be expressive is you have first "mastered your instrument" (What ever that means!), or at least spent some time familiarizing yourself with the strengths and weakness of your technique.

waylund
03-27-2003, 03:08 PM
well, I'm a graphic designer by profession, play bass on teh side, and I've heard this exact arguement about visual art too.

As a general rule, I find that the good stuff (visual or audio) follows the appropriate theory, wether the creater approached it from that angle or just winged it and relied on instinct. Usually, if you just rely on your senses, you make a lot of trial and error. You hear something wrong and may change it 6 times until you're happy, whereas if you know your theory, you may be able to only change it once.

I have to agree with he original post about getting bogged down in theory. Part of mastering theory is knowing when it's ok to ignore it. This is where you can be a really impressive musician. A master of theory (if you'll excuse the mysterious overtones) can break away from the music theory without having their music sound like garbage. Without the theory knowledge, the chances of a musician stumbling on just a progression of notes in almost non-existant.

OK, I think I've repeated myself enough... Hope this helps.

wiechfreak
05-31-2004, 11:06 PM
I know theory is a good thing to know but what good does it really do? I mean I know knowing theory can allow you to figure out scales and chords but what good is it? Most people that make it big in guitar don't know hardly any theory they just play. Can someone tell me, if I learn some theory, how it will be useful?

Bizarro
06-01-2004, 12:31 AM
Think of it like you're a writer. You want to write great stories that people love and will buy, etc. You don't know how to read or write, but you can type about 2000 words per minute. Who is going to read the *stuff* that you type?

Some people learn theory on their own by listening and playing without ever knowing the names of notes or anything. Some people learn it by taking classes, lessons, reading books, etc. You can't just walk up to an instrument and be a virtuoso, you need to understand how music works and implement your ideas by using your physical skill on the instrument.

Vai, Satriani, Morse, Malmsteen, Hammet, Van Halen... all these guys know theory, some better than others but they all know how to apply their ideas in a musical manner.

Axe-aholic
06-01-2004, 12:38 AM
What do you mean by 'big' in guitar? You mean great players? Vai, Satch, Johnson, Malmsteen, Moore, Gilbert, etc all know their theory.


I guess it really depends on what you play, though. In most rock and blues, it's not that important (and that's fine). In jazz, classical, and in many cases metal and much instrumental music- it's cruicial.


BUT, no matter what you play theory can help a lot. You use theory EVERY time you play, you just don't know what it is and can't wield it.
When you learn the ins and outs of it you end up knowing what to play and how to play it in any given situation. It GREATLY broadens your horizons and opens up endless musical possiblities, it develops your ear, it developes you as a musician instead of just a guitarist, it allows you to read written music, it allows you to invent chord voicings/scale patterns, it increases your rythmic understanding, increases your harmonic and melodic understanding, allows you to improvise better...and the list goes on and on. Basically, it's makes you a better player.

'Theory' is a very loose term and includes a myriad of topics, but it boils down to...if you want to learn it, go ahead. It can only help (and it helps me tremendously). If you don't want to, then don't.

Axe-aholic
06-01-2004, 12:39 AM
Ah..Bizzaro beat me to it :p

Bizarro
06-01-2004, 01:50 AM
Great points Axe... :) I like the way you think!

Koala
06-01-2004, 02:27 AM
Hey Wiech, weve already had a few threads on the topic at the forums and some interesting points have come up. Use the search option to find em.

hope this helps

Axe-aholic
06-01-2004, 10:28 AM
Great points Axe... :) I like the way you think!

Thanks. I like the way I think too :D

oRg
06-01-2004, 12:49 PM
Well, music theory is very useful in writing music. Music theory is the study and understanding of certain patterns that we think sound good. We have the basic principles of musical patterns that we think sound good. In music theory there are different areas of it applied to different styles of music. Let's say you wanna compose a classical piece of music that sounds like Bach or Mozart. Well in music theory you'd know to arrange alot of everything around a certain amount of scales that Bach and Mozart used, like Harmonic Minor, Major scale and it's modes, diminished, etc etc. With out the knowledge of music theory it would take you a long time to find out what patterns Bach or Mozart play most often. Musical Theory basically gives us ideas and theories to make music. IMO it makes composing and writing music that much easier.

Caffeinated Cat
06-01-2004, 03:26 PM
I used to come up with riffs that sounded good - everybody does that. I really wanted to make them into songs, but that would mean coming up with a second part, like a verse to go with the chorus. But I had no idea how to do that because I didn't know any theory. I had no concept of what key my riff was in, I didn't even know what a key was. It's quite important that a person know that and really understand the theory, because that's what makes the verse and chorus of a song sound like they're parts of the same song, and not two entirely different songs - they're in the same key. The verse might be mellow, and the chorus rockin', but they fit together and sound like a song.

As far as solos, if you don't know any scales you just plain can't play a solo. You might be able to string five notes together that don't sound terrible, but that's about it. I used to practice 3 - 5 hours a day for years - knowing some scales - and eventually I could play pretty fast. Then I got in a band as the rhythm guitarist, and the lead guitarist was just awesome. While all I could do was play a million notes, he really made music. Why? It certainly wasn't because he practiced more than I did - he didn't practice at all. Eventually I learned some theory of scales and all of a sudden it dawned on me - that's why he was so good. He didn't just know the scales, he knew the theory of how they're constructed and how they fit together with chords.

Probably the most important thing in my musical development came from learning theory. I was reading an article about modes, and they suggested playing a rhythm part in a certain key, then playing the modes over it so you could hear how different they sounded from one another. That was one of those "lightbulb goes off over head" moments. Dumb as it may sound, I never realized how the notes of the scale related to the notes in the rhythm part until that moment. Now I always practice along to a rhythm track, and it's improved my playing to the point where I might almost be as good as that lead guitarist in my old band. Well, at least I wouldn't suck nearly as much in comparison.

AcousticJames
06-01-2004, 04:37 PM
Well, there isn't much that I can add that hasn't already been said. But I look at things like this. There are guitar players, and there are musicians. Guitar players know how to manipulate the guitar as a physical instrument and make sounds come out of it. Anyone can do that.

Then there are musicians. People who know what music is, how it works and most importantly why things work the way they do. Anyone can pick up a guitar, pluck a few strings, and make sounds.

Theory is, in many ways, music itself. It's the how and the why. Most music theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the guitar itself. It's the underlying foundation of how music works. It's a set of guidelines (NOT rules) that show you how to create music, not just sounds.

Now, I'm not saying that if you don't know theory, you're not a true musician. As long as you have the heart and dedication, you are a musician. But without a good solid knowledge of music and how it works, there's not a whole lot you can do.

Ask yourself why you are playing guitar. It's to make music, isn't it? I mean, you're not just picking up the guitar to fiddle with the strings, you want to make music. That's why you play guitar. So while technical proficiency is important, so is understanding how music works so you can apply it to your instrument of choice.

I personally think that knowing at least some basic music theory, things like the major and minor scales, as well as chords, and knowing why they sound the way they do and how they are created, is fundamental to playing any kind of instrument. Don't just play the guitar, play music.

James

Stone
06-01-2004, 05:09 PM
I know theory is a good thing to know but what good does it really do? I mean I know knowing theory can allow you to figure out scales and chords but what good is it? Most people that make it big in guitar don't know hardly any theory they just play. Can someone tell me, if I learn some theory, how it will be useful?

First, music theory is not a creation tool. This is the explanation of the music composed over the centuries (what is discovered) and the music which will be composed, and of course, the anatomy of music. For me, a perfect theory knowledge is when you can link everything logically and not only when you know the rules, but when you understand them and can explain them why they are made in the way they are. After that, you will never forget them and you will think of music not only with your ears, but with your logic, too.
This will help you to write music faster, it will be a kind of prediction what will sound better.
Music tends to live its own life, a kind of wild life, and the composer must know its anatomy to make successful changes in the way music lives. Composer must can talk to music and must understand what music wants. Music exists with the compromises between the composer and the music. Maybe this sounds very philosophical, but I feel it in that way and this are the deductions I made for myself.
The strictest rules are the rules from the classical music. Every style has its particular rules which can be just to break some of this strictest rules. But I think it is better if the composer knows the rules and when he is breaking them. In this context, there are no rules which cannot be broken in the name of sound. But it is better to know the rules before start breaking them.
Some people haven't perfect theory knowledge (for example, Vangelis, Yanni) but they can compose music without problems and they are really good in this. It is possible to compose music without some great theory knowledge, but I think this is when the composer can hear everything in his head, just like watching a movie.
I compose music (electronica, classical) and I remember that when I started learning music theory, I started to learn it very hard because I was really interested in it and I didn't stop learning it until a teacher told me that my knowledge is on conservatory level (but of course, I am with an open mind to learn something new, because there are some innovations and nobody knows everything). I studied all of this because I am a man which is interested in every detail and why the things work; I just cannot allow me to don't know something in this sphere or, at all, in a sphere in which I am very interested. This is my 'engine'. And I can say all of this made me feel myself in the best way, but in fact this didn't made some big changes in the way I compose. The feel, the emotions and ideas, the inspiration - these are the most important.
Generally, I can say music theory is most important to composers and not so much to players, but the more you know, the better... So, if you are interested in theory and you want to write music, it is good to know it well.

Zatz
06-01-2004, 07:34 PM
Threads merged by moderator

FYI: I decided to merge the newly created thread that was entitled "what good is it" (created by wiechfreak) with this one as they are IMO very similar.

The respective starters/posters are welcome to post their suggestions concerning reorganizing of this discussion (via PM).

Warm regards,
Zatz.

Tiger Lily
11-20-2004, 01:32 AM
wow, i have never seen such an indepth disscusion of beer, all i have to say is, its there, drink it, the end.
its not complicated, dont make me think about it, that will ruin everything!




and theory is incredable, its the support, and yes it helps a hell of a lot, unless ur drunk, in that case it doesnt matter wut u sound like :D

Torin
11-21-2004, 12:47 PM
I had trouble with the explanation by 'the1andonly'. For a moment, I thought I could understand - and I certainly DO want to understand - but.... can anyone break it down into simpler terms? Please? :confused:

Tiger Lily
11-21-2004, 11:53 PM
i think i get it. its like making a D/C, where chords are combined, with the basic for and changed bass notes or wutever.
as for the arnold part...er.....:rolleyes:



Theory is like the glass that holds the delicouse music smoothie, without it, there is a mess, and you cannot rely soaly on theory, because you dont want to end up eating just a glass, so you need both.
thats an obnoxiuos metophore! :D

adityabarve
12-01-2004, 12:52 PM
hey guys...the original statement is true...theory for music...but not true vice versa.
the thing is theory should be used as a tool...but the form should be dominated primarily by the beauty, the music. if a particular note sounds damn good, but doesn't fit theoretically...well, then the note wins

cheers...aditya

Torin
12-01-2004, 04:56 PM
D/c??

theox
12-05-2004, 11:44 PM
Theory is a way to describe something that has happened. There are always people who do things that cannot be explained with "old theory". Theory ALWAYS follows the music. That's just the way it is and that's the way it should be.

D/C is a slash chord which means a chord played over a different root. In this case the chord is built off the notes C D F# and A. You could write it out as C6sus2#11 if you like, but who wants to read that when it really is a D major triad over a C note.

Chim_Chim
12-06-2004, 12:18 AM
YEAH BEER! http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage08/12.gif

http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage22/4.gif I can't believe this thread is still alive!

viva BEER!

Cheers,
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/beer1.gif



http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/4.gif hail beer...