The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Music vs. sound? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 3rd April 2010
  #151
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Y've said, ethnic music which obviously breaks the rules of classical western music isn't meaningful
i think you are trying to read more then I wrote. anyway enough about me, whats your take? music vs sound.

Quote:
You also seem to be claiming the sheer popularity of a piece over time is connected to how meaningful it is?
from a grand perspective covering history and humanity, yeah. sadly.

i go see a good guitarist jam, have a great time, yeah that has lots of meaning--to me. My great grandchildren will never know. Such is life!
Old 3rd April 2010
  #152
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
i think you are trying to read more then I wrote. anyway enough about me, whats your take? music vs sound.
These are conceptual/linguistic/philosophical issues - but basically, if I listen to something as music, or if you compose something as music, it is. There isn't any kind of a content test for what is and isn't music, other than it would be absurd to apply the term to a piece of visual art, or a muffin.

Quote:
from a grand perspective covering history and humanity, yeah. sadly.

i go see a good guitarist jam, have a great time, yeah that has lots of meaning--to me. My great grandchildren will never know. Such is life!
But your great grandchildren probably also won't ever know about some of the bad music that is popular during it's 'day'. And it has been the case that music which was unappreciated in its time, was appreciated later on.

The thing is that 'meaning' isn't something that can be measured in any sense, and certainly not by popularity.
Old 3rd April 2010
  #153
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
But your great grandchildren probably also won't ever know about some of the bad music that is popular during it's 'day'. And it has been the case that music which was unappreciated in its time, was appreciated later on.

The thing is that 'meaning' isn't something that can be measured in any sense, and certainly not by popularity.
exactly

i don't find "the black eyed peas" very meaningful. heh
Old 4th April 2010
  #154
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

To answer the original question the OP raised I think there are several reasons why modern music produced electronically has focused more on sound than 'music':

1. Some people deliberately want to steer away from 'traditional' formal structures and musical content. They want to explore sound design/acoustmatic/ etc etc styles

2. Some people ( 90% I think ) don't know how, can't be bothered to learn, ignorantly believe that they have no need to learn and can't see how it would help, are so desensitized by listening only to sound based music that they don't recognize 'music' based music and it's existence.

I think it's a real crime that the majority of young producers I see seriously lack the essential knowledge that will help them rise above the rest by writing music that has best of both worlds.. great music with great sound.

Beer.
Old 4th April 2010
  #155
Lives for gear
 
mildheadwound's Avatar
All i know, is that when my buddy comes over to jam, (and this guy is a freaking musical prodigy), because he's duped himself with all these 'scales' and 'chords' and 'musical' theory, everything the ****er plunks down on the keys sounds like some throwback, prog-rock bull****, like Chicago. Only on a Virus. And frankly, it sounds like ass. Maybe the detuned oscillators are messing with his chords, or he's just not grasping that going all Yngwie on the Monomachine isn't necessarily a good idea. In fact, i've heard these blues scales before, but they sound a lot better being bottled off a resonator guitar vs. being wrung through my digital, simulation of cat torture, and then brapped out with a sherman FB. And he hates that too; the Sherman filterbank!? Can you imagine that!? No. It's unacceptable. Formal musical training definitely messes with your ability to properly enjoy these bastards of technology ...
Old 4th April 2010
  #156
Gear Maniac
 

I think the problem arrises when you compare 'high art' with 'popular culture' Bach was at the very highest level of Baroque composition, exploring harmonic rhythm to an exceptional level. Popular music today is aimed at the masses and is therefore not going to compare with the harmonic skill of such a composer. It would be easier to compare modern classical composers to his style.

Music is always evolving creating new trends and new ideas of what is acceptable. The development of the synthesizer has opened up a whole new world of exploration for composers to manipulate textures in a way that has never been possible before. The 'popular' music that is created on it is aimed at the masses who like repetitive harmonic phrases and unfortunately many classical composers are too pedantic to use the modern sound of the instrument in their pieces.
Old 4th April 2010
  #157
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

I don't feel its a question of high art verses street culture but more of a question of understanding a language. The language of music and how it works can be applied to any type of music. The more you know the more you can use in creating your music.
Old 4th April 2010
  #158
Lives for gear
 
in a blue field's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ark View Post
What is it about the use of electronic instruments that has made the ideas of melody and harmony so much less important than they once were? Is it just that electronic instruments are so much more sonically flexible than acoustic ones that it impels people to use them? Is it that it is easier to mash fragments together if they are mostly rhythmic rather than melodic? Is there some other reason that I am missing?

alright, i'll be the cynic here. i dont think the picture is anything nearly as pretty as that. it takes just as much knowledge of composition/melody/harmony to produce a beautifully written track, as it takes a different kind of knowledge, from the other side of the brain, to produce a mathematically flawless wonder. that was horribly ineloquent of me, i hope you get what i mean. you're basically talking about the difference between two different kinds of nerds, if i may be so bold - music nerds and techy nerds. (whatev, not like anyone should take offense anyway, you need to be a nerd to handle all this gear stuff properly, i sure am one, it's just hidden behind tattoos and funky hair)

in drumnbass, it's glaringly apparent, the diff b/w the two. i for one am in the music camp, and i suppose i prefer that over the technological wizardry... so if you listen to dnb, you already know where i'm going with this: that i turn up my nose at "clownstep", that i prefer art over just beats, etc etc. but what i eventually realized, is that even tho that stuff is horrendous musically, it's some of the best engineered music out there. i wont names names, even if i did tho i dont think it would make a difference. notice how on dnb forums, there are always people talkin smack on the clownstep, but the artists who make the clownstep never defend themselves? it's kuz they dont feel the need to - they know they are not making "songs" so much as they are making "beats", and they are OK with that, and their beats do indeed sound clean and loud, interesting textures to basic fundamental sounds, the sounds are just as well made and put together as possible, despite the fact that it makes musically inclined people such as myself begin to induce vomitting.

and if you seek out those artists and strike up conversations with them, you'll find out that a good amount of them are in fact mastering or mixing engineers (i've found it's the former more often than the latter); those are artists who are going for sound first, to bring it back to the thread title, and music second. i'll still always favor the composition, but it's just too much knowledge from two different spheres of thought for any one person to acquire gracefully or quickly enough. i think the best reason to collab is to find someone who is in the opposite camp as you

anyhow the point is, i dont think it has anything to do with the "exciting infinite landscape of future-music sound design", i think you're just talking about left brain vs right brain, really. i dont see any lessening of melodic music in EDM compared to other genres, i dont see any less "music", just more output from the "sound" crowd. becoming a guitarist worthy of success may take a lot of things inside a person that not everyone has, one of those things tho is not technical knowhow - you never needed to be at the top of your math class to make traditional instrument-based music. whatev i've said enough, i think yall got the point i'm trying to make
Old 4th April 2010
  #159
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
The more you know the more you can use in creating your music.
No.

Who the %¤&! needs to know how many jazzy substitutions you can put around a melody line when that melody line is part of a dancefloor techno piece?

For some music theory is essential - but certainly not for all music.

What i still don't understand is why theory guys can't just accept that?

Sore that you spent years training for something and then some noob comes along and outdoes you with only a PC and a face full of pimples? heh
Old 4th April 2010
  #160
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mildheadwound View Post
All i know, is that when my buddy comes over to jam, (and this guy is a freaking musical prodigy), because he's duped himself with all these 'scales' and 'chords' and 'musical' theory, everything the ****er plunks down on the keys sounds like some throwback, prog-rock bull****, like Chicago. Only on a Virus. And frankly, it sounds like ass. Maybe the detuned oscillators are messing with his chords, or he's just not grasping that going all Yngwie on the Monomachine isn't necessarily a good idea. In fact, i've heard these blues scales before, but they sound a lot better being bottled off a resonator guitar vs. being wrung through my digital, simulation of cat torture, and then brapped out with a sherman FB. And he hates that too; the Sherman filterbank!? Can you imagine that!? No. It's unacceptable. Formal musical training definitely messes with your ability to properly enjoy these bastards of technology ...
LOL.
So many notes, so little time.heh

I know plenty of these people, it's hard to create good music when the music is all about THEM and their talent. LOL..

"Yea, cool stuff. NOW, back to the song."
Old 4th April 2010
  #161
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
The more you know the more you can use in creating your music.




John
Old 4th April 2010
  #162
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
No.

Who the %¤&! needs to know how many jazzy substitutions you can put around a melody line when that melody line is part of a dancefloor techno piece?

For some music theory is essential - but certainly not for all music.

What i still don't understand is why theory guys can't just accept that?

Sore that you spent years training for something and then some noob comes along and outdoes you with only a PC and a face full of pimples? heh
I don't get it. I haven't heard one person on this thread say that you can't make good music without knowing theory. I haven't heard anyone say that you need to be a competent jazz musician to make good music. I haven't heard anyone say that jazz-inspired chord substitutions will improve dancefloor techno music. You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about:
1) music theory
2) jazz
I don't see who you're fighting with here, or why you're as angry as you seem to be. This is just a bunch of guys talking about music.

John
Old 4th April 2010
  #163
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ark View Post

However, there is a question that I think is important, and that is why. What is it about the use of electronic instruments that has made the ideas of melody and harmony so much less important than they once were? Is it just that electronic instruments are so much more sonically flexible than acoustic ones that it impels people to use them? Is it that it is easier to mash fragments together if they are mostly rhythmic rather than melodic? Is there some other reason that I am missing?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I think it has to do with esthetics and having the choice make any possible sound.

In Bachs days there were only a couple of groups of instruments and within the groups you had variations but generally they sounded similar in tone.
Then you organized several instruments to cover the whole spectrum into something like an orchestra.
So while you did not have precise control over the spectrum of the final sound you did have the option to have these instruments play different parts and thus create harmonic variation throughout the spectrum.
Choosing the instruments and writing notes for them was in a way the only way to make up the 'sound'.
This works even better for instruments like organs that cover the whole spectrum and even act as additive synthesizers.
The limiting factor here was polyphony and modulation as you only have 10 fingers and no LFO's

Fast forward to our time.
We can now compose sounds with surgical precision and control the complete spectral makeup and it's flow over time.
This gives us the ultimate possibility of creating any sound we may whish to create.
(But that is usually a bit too much to ask from a human being and we settle for 'dumbed' down instruments we call synthesizers just to get around to actually making music.)

These days we are not bound to using any instrument at all.
We can modulate the complete hearable spectrum with just one press of a button.
We can make sounds that do not adhere to the laws that mechanical instruments were bound to.
So the only limitation is our imagination.
With so much possible variation a question arises.
What do i think of the sound? (because, if i don't like it, i can change it)
So the focus becomes the actual sound, it's esthetics (or maybe lack of).
It also becomes fashion to some extent.
Wendy Carlos rendition of Bach sounds horribly outdated now but most synths these days can make those sounds.
We have a choice in how the basic building blocks of music are made up.

Because we now can produce synthetic spectra we are less concerned with how well the instrument is played or how interesting the individual successions of notes are. And what is a note anyway
We are caught up in a completely new way of judging sonics.
Something Bach could not do in his time.
Old 4th April 2010
  #164
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBadJohn View Post
I don't get it. I haven't heard one person on this thread say that you can't make good music without knowing theory. I haven't heard anyone say that you need to be a competent jazz musician to make good music. I haven't heard anyone say that jazz-inspired chord substitutions will improve dancefloor techno music. You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about:
1) music theory
2) jazz
I don't see who you're fighting with here, or why you're as angry as you seem to be. This is just a bunch of guys talking about music.

John
Are you trolling me? heh

This thread is a rant about modern music relying to little on theory - and then all you claqueurs to the op come in and join the "non-educated-musician bashing party".

Of course smugly hiding that under a varnish of tolerance - of which you show absolutely none.

If you were actually tolerant you'd just acknowledge that not everybody needs theory to create music (not spelling it out does not mean that it isn't inferred) and you would also refrain from bringing up the "not knowing theory is limiting" claims.

As has been shown, lots of people create music without needing (classical) theory and do not feel limited by that "lack of knowledge" because their chosen genre has no need for that theory.
What is it that is so hard to understand (and accept) about that?

A limited world view?
Elitism?
A need to provoke?

To use an analogy: Your claim is as stupid as claiming that in order to appreciate reading books one must have several years of litterature studies under the belt and everybody who reads books should know their litterature history.
This analogy shows more similarities - because to enjoy some books you definitely need a lot of knowledge about litterature - but most books are easily read and enjoyed even by people who have not spent several years at university learning how to "truly enjoy litterature"...

But going around telling people that they can't enjoy reading because they have not studied litterature would be quite foolish...
Old 4th April 2010
  #165
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
In Bachs days there were only a couple of groups of instruments
Are you forgetting about folk musicians and instruments in Bachs days?

Just because classical music is what we still have the sheets for, it does not mean that historical times did not have loads of "amateur" musicians doing many styles/genres and using more instruments than used in classical as well.

It wasn't all stuck up upper-class entertainment in those days either heh
Old 4th April 2010
  #166
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Are you trolling me? heh

This thread is a rant about modern music relying to little on theory - and then all you claqueurs to the op come in and join the "non-educated-musician bashing party".

Of course smugly hiding that under a varnish of tolerance - of which you show absolutely none.

If you were actually tolerant you'd just acknowledge that not everybody needs theory to create music (not spelling it out does not mean that it isn't inferred) and you would also refrain from bringing up the "not knowing theory is limiting" claims.

As has been shown, lots of people create music without needing (classical) theory and do not feel limited by that "lack of knowledge" because their chosen genre has no need for that theory.
What is it that is so hard to understand (and accept) about that?

A limited world view?
Elitism?
A need to provoke?

To use an analogy: Your claim is as stupid as claiming that in order to appreciate reading books one must have several years of litterature studies under the belt and everybody who reads books should know their litterature history.
This analogy shows more similarities - because to enjoy some books you definitely need a lot of knowledge about litterature - but most books are easily read and enjoyed even by people who have not spent several years at university learning how to "truly enjoy litterature"...

But going around telling people that they can't enjoy reading because they have not studied litterature would be quite foolish...
I don't think I said or claimed anything like what you're saying.
And yes, I think you're getting angry for no good reason.

John
Old 4th April 2010
  #167
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
The language of music and how it works can be applied to any type of music. The more you know the more you can use in creating your music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBadJohn View Post



John
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBadJohn View Post
I don't think I said or claimed anything like what you're saying.

John
Ermmm, if giving a thumbs up to beermasters statement isn't something i have commented upon in my previous post let me know.
(Hint: the "not knowing theory" part...)

Once again, for claritys sake:
Beermasters statement is only valid for people who create music in a genre where harmonic theory is important.
A large amount of music (especially electronic - which happens to be what this forum is about) does not fall into genres where beermasters statement is valid.

Claiming that statement to be an universal truth is what pisses me off - and the only purpose of such a statement is to make the poster feel better about his supposedly superior musical skills heh

Again, any knowledge of counterpoint or clever chord substitutions is absolutely unnecessary if i want to string a bunch of samples of gong sounds together and add a drummachine rythm to that.

Should i now want to run that through a distortion pedal, reverberate it to hell and back and then hardlimit it to max volume all harmonic theory in the world still isn't going to be useful to me in the creation of such a piece.

"language of music" me arse ... heh

In some genres the language is indeed harmonic theory - but in others the language is skillful mangling of samples...

It simply isn't universal.
Old 4th April 2010
  #168
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Ermmm, if giving a thumbs up to beermasters statement isn't something i have commented upon in my previous post let me know.
(Hint: the "not knowing theory" part...)

.
I only agreed with the last sentence of his post. Not specifically theory, but any knowledge increases a musician's available resources.

John
Old 4th April 2010
  #169
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
All handwaving about "well, theory - -on the other hand look at this stuff which is actually progressive, not that you harmonicist cavemen would know" doesn't change people's tastes overnight via internet forums.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Again, any knowledge of counterpoint or clever chord substitutions is absolutely unnecessary if i want to string a bunch of samples of gong sounds together and add a drummachine rythm to that.
And if it sounds like horse manure and there's no way for me to determine if you're 1) actually skilled and ridiculously avant garde or 2) clueless but well-educated in acting artsy fartsy *, then it doesn't matter if it still sounds like horse manure, I'm not going to like it anyway.

* Worst case: 3) massively trolling the audience and raking in the cash
Old 4th April 2010
  #170
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBadJohn View Post
I only agreed with the last sentence of his post. Not specifically theory, but any knowledge increases a musician's available resources.

John
While i do agree in principle*, i still fail to see how knowledge of quantum mechanics would increase my available ressources as a musician...

...and in some cases harmonic theory is as relevant to a piece of music (or a whole genre) as quantum mechanics.

Claiming that a techno artist needs to know harmonic theory is like claiming that jazz players should know all about the latest software synths before they can be called accomplished players...



*Yes, listening to a lot of different stuff (and possibly learning/mimicking some of it) obviously can only be good for ones musicianship.
...then there is the general knowledge about arts, the world, society and so on and so on. Life.
Being a well rounded human being probably helps with being creative.
Old 4th April 2010
  #171
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoozer View Post
And if it sounds like horse manure and there's no way for me to determine if you're 1) actually skilled and ridiculously avant garde or 2) clueless but well-educated in acting artsy fartsy *, then it doesn't matter if it still sounds like horse manure, I'm not going to like it anyway.
What about the jazz that is so hopelessly intellectualized that i (and i am not the only one) can't hear wether they play random notes or not?

Do i have to take their word for it being somewhat coherent noise?

....after a certain degree of unlistenableness it's all a pisstake anyway heh
Old 4th April 2010
  #172
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
Otherwise we could all buy shortwave radios, listen to the satellites talk and call it a day!
You mean like this?
Old 5th April 2010
  #173
Lives for gear
 
gremlin moon's Avatar
 

At the end of the day I think a certain small group of individuals, like myself, gets transfixed by otherworldly sounds -- much like modern art. It is easy to say that most modern visual artists do not have talent, vision or sincerity in comparison to the "old masters." I agree. Yet, if I am honest with myself, I really like great modern art, there just has not been hundreds of years to winnow the collection. A well designed synth patch can provide me with more enjoyment than a mediocre song. Sometimes I want a Rothko over Raphael.

I think "music" has won though -- companies like VSL, EWQL, Garritan, and Sibelius all seem to be doing better than Waldorf.
Old 5th April 2010
  #174
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
No.

Who the %¤&! needs to know how many jazzy substitutions you can put around a melody line when that melody line is part of a dancefloor techno piece?

For some music theory is essential - but certainly not for all music.

What i still don't understand is why theory guys can't just accept that?

Sore that you spent years training for something and then some noob comes along and outdoes you with only a PC and a face full of pimples? heh

Who is the noob with pimples making great music? Im serious
Old 5th April 2010
  #175
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Are you forgetting about folk musicians and instruments in Bachs days?

Just because classical music is what we still have the sheets for, it does not mean that historical times did not have loads of "amateur" musicians doing many styles/genres and using more instruments than used in classical as well.

It wasn't all stuck up upper-class entertainment in those days either heh
Yes, i agree, but those were all variations on a basic theme.
It's either a string being struck/bowed/plucked and resonating in a chamber, or it is a chamber resonating with air movement.
I was not specificly talking about 'high end' classical instruments.
More about classes of ways of getting acoustic sound out of a mechanical device we call an instrument.

There are certain qualities about the sound that you cannot change when you play a guitar-like sinstrument.

But today we can do absolutely anything with sound.

If you take a piece of tape with a few performed notes and splice it to a loop, what then is the instrument?
If you digitize this 1 second tape and time strech it to 10 minutes, what then is a note?

We now have sonic tools that challenge the classical vocabulary of music.
There is enough music out there that simply cannot be described in terms of (western) musical notes.
This does not take away all that has come from using western musical notation (after all it's there for a very good reason).
But it does expand the playing field of what is considered music.
Old 5th April 2010
  #176
Lives for gear
 
kilon's Avatar
 

Let me jump in the conversation and add that there is a big diffirence between a good player and a good composer . Its a big mistake to think that because you are the first you are also automatically the latter.
Old 5th April 2010
  #177
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ignatius View Post
exactly

i don't find "the black eyed peas" very meaningful. heh
nor do i! Over time is the key thing. And popularity may come a century later....what is key, however, is that fans keep an artists creation alive. The more fans art has the more meaningful it is. Pop is meaningless--it's consumable candy--and a year or two after produced, likely is forgotten. Just because I have it on my ipod doesn't mean it has a special place.

What is interesting is to read the best selling books of 100 years ago...they are almost always not the books read in classes that study literature from the same period.

Re the writing analogy, in order to write, one must use language. True, one doesn't need to study the language to write a succesful book. And knowing a lot about literature doesn't guarantee that one will be a good writer. In fact, it probably means one will be a pompous ass / critic and be able to spot hundreds of things 'wrong' with our favorite books. At the same time, if I take a look at writers I respect, I find they almost always studied literature and were very knowledgeable about story crafting. Very rarely do we see someone who just sits down and puts a pen to paper and crafts fiction that resonates through the ages (though it does happen). Very often authors are also voracious readers, consumers of their own art.

It is why twilight moon may not be remembered in 100 years, and a story by china mieville might be. But who is to say?

Old 5th April 2010
  #178
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Ermmm, if giving a thumbs up to beermasters statement isn't something i have commented upon in my previous post let me know.
(Hint: the "not knowing theory" part...)

Once again, for claritys sake:
Beermasters statement is only valid for people who create music in a genre where harmonic theory is important.
A large amount of music (especially electronic - which happens to be what this forum is about) does not fall into genres where beermasters statement is valid.
Man you must have a big chip on your shoulder if you miss read everything anyone says that's pro education


Listen, whether you call it "Music theory" or "classical harmony" or "Extended harmony" or good old " I know my chords and how they work" or
" I can hear every layer in that recording.." or hundreds of other terms used to describe and help you understand "music" It's all the same thing ! !

You completely miss the point grumph by assuming that learning more about "music" is a stigma. You chose to use that knowledge or not. If I'm writing an 'urban' track for a client... yep.. I know that I don't need much of it and I focus on the styles of that genre. I get a call from a mate who's a great songwriter ( self taught guitarist.. no formal education but bloody good songwriter and musician ) he needs some strings arranged for a couple of his songs... no problem I can use the knowledge

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
To use an analogy: Your claim is as stupid as claiming that in order to appreciate reading books one must have several years of litterature studies under the belt and everybody who reads books should know their litterature history.
This analogy shows more similarities - because to enjoy some books you definitely need a lot of knowledge about litterature - but most books are easily read and enjoyed even by people who have not spent several years at university learning how to "truly enjoy litterature"...
Your analogy doesn't work because we're talking about 'creating' and your analogy is about reading. A better analogy would be: with a good education in literature, grammar, form and structure and great ideas you can write a period drama just as well as modern thriller or cheap porno..... without the education you're not going to pull off a classic well written piece, but you may end up writing some pulp fiction.

People need to stop shying away from learning more about music and I think need to be introduced the reasons why this knowledge is good and how it can be applied to anything they care to write. I guess it's a bit like living in a small town and never traveling outside of it... life can be fine and you do your own thing oblivious to the existence of the rest of the world an what it has to offer.. nothing wrong with that.... but if you care to step outside your comfort zone and experience what else is on offer I guarantee you won't be let down !

Beer.
Old 5th April 2010
  #179
Gear Head
 
Wolfenstadt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Are you trolling me? heh

This thread is a rant about modern music relying to little on theory - and then all you claqueurs to the op come in and join the "non-educated-musician bashing party".

Of course smugly hiding that under a varnish of tolerance - of which you show absolutely none.

If you were actually tolerant you'd just acknowledge that not everybody needs theory to create music (not spelling it out does not mean that it isn't inferred) and you would also refrain from bringing up the "not knowing theory is limiting" claims.

As has been shown, lots of people create music without needing (classical) theory and do not feel limited by that "lack of knowledge" because their chosen genre has no need for that theory.
What is it that is so hard to understand (and accept) about that?

A limited world view?
Elitism?
A need to provoke?

To use an analogy: Your claim is as stupid as claiming that in order to appreciate reading books one must have several years of litterature studies under the belt and everybody who reads books should know their litterature history.
This analogy shows more similarities - because to enjoy some books you definitely need a lot of knowledge about litterature - but most books are easily read and enjoyed even by people who have not spent several years at university learning how to "truly enjoy litterature"...

But going around telling people that they can't enjoy reading because they have not studied litterature would be quite foolish...

I do not think anyone here actually believes that you couldn't make music at all without theoretical knowledge.

Ok stupid analogy time:

Everyone whith access to a hammer, wood and nails could easily build a little toolshed or whatever. No training needed there, allthough a trained carpenter would probably use much less time to build a better looking, more robust shed. However, if an untrained guy would venture to build a real house, it would probably end up looking like **** and/or collapsing a week after completion. There is just no way one can build a house without having engineering knowledge and the technical skill to pull it off.

So, 1) Theory is in some cases absolutely essential. This would be the case for instance when building houses or writing counterpoint music.
And 2) in the cases where it is NOT essential, for instance when building toolsheds, making 303 arpeggios, etc. - theoretical knowledge most certaintly won't hurt!

Music theory makes it easier to navigate the musical field - that's all. Even where it isn't strictly required, having a theoretical understanding of what's going on is always helpful.
Old 5th April 2010
  #180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
you can write a period drama just as well as modern thriller or cheap porno.....
read any good porno lately?

i hear the new harry botter is good.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
lovecapacitor / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
2
hey_mavis / So much gear, so little time
21
navitus / Music For Games
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump