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 6th April 2010
  #211
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
S
I am sorry, but if i as a noob ask some guy to show me some chords on a guitar so i can try to sound like the blues guy on the radio and he shows me some fingerings and tells me in what order i should play them i would not call that "learning theory".

That is learning how to play.



Yes that is theory. It's musical education, It's learning how to play... It's learning that there is an order to the blues.... and a patern.... that can translate to other forms.... that exists in many forms...
Old 6th April 2010
  #212
Gear Head
 
Wolfenstadt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Second reply: Do you really think that learning how to play an instrument has to be based on theory?

I am sorry, but if i as a noob ask some guy to show me some chords on a guitar so i can try to sound like the blues guy on the radio and he shows me some fingerings and tells me in what order i should play them i would not call that "learning theory".

That is learning how to play.

And playing that stuff for decades without ever bothering to learn harmonic theory is what has made people great blues players - despite the sad attempts to write off their music as primitive and worth less than music reated by formally trained musicians...



Theory is when the guy starts telling me that all i have to do is to play the 1 4 5 progression and then add some 7'ths and solo over it in a variety of the pentatonic scale...

All i wanted to do was just play the guitar and have fun...
I don't know if you read my last post or not. Basically, whenever you play ANYTHING musical, you are already displaying comformity to a set of norms. If you weren't, it would sound like a totally random selection of sounds to everyone else.

To learn more about theory is to shed light on a path you are already on, and from which you cannot escape.

That doesn't mean you HAVE to do it, or that it is necessarily more fun or whatever. And as you have pointed out yourself, there are many ways to learn - "just playing the guitar", studying counterpoint, singing in the shower, whatever works for YOU, go for it! Learning by doing is still learning music though, and in that respect it is not dissimilar to learning about music through theory. And why not do both? Don't you agree that it can be helpful to look at music from different angles?
Old 6th April 2010
  #213
Lives for gear
 
Simonator's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by piotr View Post
but how about this? :



p.
That... is super-fricking awesome!

But it's only contrapunctus 7 for a tiny slice of quirky breakdown... before dropping into a contemporary 1 bar looping bass-line, and no harmony at all for the bit that people might actually dance to.
Old 6th April 2010
  #214
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
I did read your analogy but you make no sense in what you say:




Followed by:



So Which is it ? Do you understand the Grammar or not ? if you do you understand the language, if you don't then you don't then you clearly don't speak the language.

You grew up with LEARNING to speak these languages by being spoken to in these languages and slowly and gradually learning the dialect... this was learned ! you also learned that any language is made up of words that make sentences and statements... there is a correct way to ask for pint of beer and there is a polite way to ask for a pint of beer. there is a rude way to ask for a pint of beer..... these are structures and forms that produce and end result..... its IS very structured and defined... the same as music is.

you can by all means go off piste and speak your own made up language by making up your own words or by using existing words but randomly joining them to other random words.. nobody else will understand you

You can sit at a piano and randomly hit notes...... and clusters..... nice if randomness is what you want to achieve.

Most music like any language has various structures that define it and make it what it is. You can of course try to learn more about it on your own... and by default if you're using a keyboard you'll probably discover chords that work with each other and that sound better to you than other chords and notes... you can discover harmony on your own... like it or hate it much of what you'll discover will be part of a bigger picture of musical knowledge that has existed for centuries.
You seem to be too hard headed to understand that theory is the result of analyzing practice - not the other way around.

Practice first, theory second.

The point is that grammatics are the theory of language in the same way that music theory is a theory of music.

Neither of the two is required to learn the practise of either of those.

And knowing the practice does not mean that you subconsciously learn the theory that has been developed for that practice.

Look: A normally developed 5 year old will have a fair grasp of the language he has grown up with - yet if asked where the subject in his sentences is or how he would conjugate "to be" he will probably just stare at you blankly.
He does speak the language and knows most rules in it, yet has no #¤%"¤#! clue about grammatics.

The same goes for music.
Knowing the rules* that apply to your specific style of playing does not mean that you know the theory behind the rules.



*A big difference between language and music however is that there really are no rules in music - where intelligible language relies on them - so that one can actually join random tones and call it music. Aleatoric, anyone?
Old 6th April 2010
  #215
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfenstadt View Post
I don't know if you read my last post or not. Basically, whenever you play ANYTHING musical, you are already displaying comformity to a set of norms. If you weren't, it would sound like a totally random selection of sounds to everyone else.

To learn more about theory is to shed light on a path you are already on, and from which you cannot escape.

That doesn't mean you HAVE to do it, or that it is necessarily more fun or whatever. And as you have pointed out yourself, there are many ways to learn - "just playing the guitar", studying counterpoint, singing in the shower, whatever works for YOU, go for it! Learning by doing is still learning music though, and in that respect it is not dissimilar to learning about music through theory. And why not do both? Don't you agree that it can be helpful to look at music from different angles?
There is lots of music that to the uninitiated does sound like a random selection of sounds...

Quote:
To learn more about theory is to shed light on a path you are already on, and from which you cannot escape.
Here we are again
The assumption that simply learning theory magically improves your music.

"light on the path" ...me %¤&#! arse...

So just what light would knowledge of counterpoint or advanced harmonic substitutions have shed on the paths of the (by your definiton apparently) poor uninformed negroe souls that played their primitive and repetitive 1 4 5 blues music?

To phrase it less insulting:
How would extensive theoretic knowledge have improved the blues?

Answer me that, please.

Would you ask BB King (insert blues great of choice) to study Coltranes compositions so he could play better blues?
(Imaginary conversation in the 60's:
Friend of B B King:"Look BB, i know you are famous and all and have been for the past 15 years, but there's this cat called Coltrane who has a totally new way of harmonizing... I think that you should learn that too, because in all truth, you are on a dark path and need some light..."
B B King: "#¤%! you!")

At least in the last paragraph you acknowlegde that one actually does not have to learn theory in order to play - but only if you get rid of that "shining light on the path" stance will you be truly tolerant heh
Old 6th April 2010
  #216
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilon View Post
Learning is a two way process :

1) Acquiring the knowledge (which can happen in two ways a) by being taught Musical Theory , b) by learing with practise )

2) Developing the skill . This means that you develop the right habits in such way that your brain automates the common musical tasks.

What makes a player/composer great is 95% skill and 5% knowledge. And because musical theory is actually not the only way to acquire musical knowledge (by the way musical knoledge is not the same as musical theory ) , musical thoery becomes alot less important than people really think.

And we are talking about composition its even less important cause musical theory is more about playing than it is about composing.
Evcharisto! heh
Old 6th April 2010
  #217
Lives for gear
 
kilon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Evcharisto! heh
Velbekomme



So that means you agree ? cause I thought otherwise from your posts.
Old 6th April 2010
  #218
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilon View Post
Velbekomme



So that means you agree ? cause I thought otherwise from your posts.
As i read it, you say that theory is not a prerequisite for making good music - or in fact music at all, good, bad or great - and that is what i have been trying to say all along.
Old 6th April 2010
  #219
Lives for gear
 
kilon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
As i read it, you say that theory is not a prerequisite for making good music - or in fact music at all, good, bad or great - and that is what i have been trying to say all along.
ok now i feel really stupid.....

"Scoty beam me up"

Old 6th April 2010
  #220
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
The assumption that simply learning theory magically improves your music.

"light on the path" ...me %¤&#! arse...

So just what light would knowledge of counterpoint or advanced harmonic substitutions have shed on the paths of the (by your definiton apparently) poor uninformed negroe souls that played their primitive and repetitive 1 4 5 blues music?

To phrase it less insulting:
How would extensive theoretic knowledge have improved the blues?

Answer me that, please.


Nobody said anything about Blues music needing counterpoint or advanced substitutions

What I did say is that the structure of the blues ( call it theory call it practice call playing well etc ) does have a 'form' that has to be learned or else it's not a blues. This is the theory of how a blues typically works. Whether you're shown the E7 chord... then the others in the sequence or whether you learned it from a book or a recording it doesn't matter how you learn it it is a structure... a form... its what makes the blues the blues... it has theory whether you see or not.

BB King and others know the structure and theory.. they can probably play the blues in any key.... they know their stuff...that stuff is knowledge based on practice, experience and history.... Its all underpinned by theory.. knowledge that can be passed on and learned

Its all there to be seen from one tradition of music to another..
Old 6th April 2010
  #221
Lives for gear
 
in a blue field's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfenstadt View Post
Totally! I have never really cared for Stargates productions myself - for whatever reason they seem bland and genderless to me, but then again those qualities seems to be in high demand, so who am I to judge? The lead guy is in no way a long-time superstar here in Norway though - whoever told you that was either lying, confused or coked up heh

nah yer right my bad, when i mentioned the superstar bit i was mixing them up with the other writing group from that niche of the world that locks out with us, Espionage... dunno how long Espen has been a "superstar" or if he's even considered one, or if it's been a long time, but some of those videos of his, man, sure do look like they were made at the same time as like Ace Of Base. tho i did see him once on a norwegian awards show performing, it was just him playing the ukelele and a chick with a kick drum. i thought it was pretty cool, it was refreshing, i figure you had to be something of a "superstar" in your own country to be allowed to get up there and break the guitar-bass-drums mold
Old 6th April 2010
  #222
Bio
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Grumph, so many people have made positive comments about the need and use of education and how it can ONLY be for good and better but you seem to view them as elitist which is your problem.
Education can not only be good :
A friend of mine studied classical trumpet for years.

One day he wanted to improvise, to play in a jazz group, and with his education he cannot, because he was blocked by all the theory he learn. there is no theory of feeling.

He has to "forget" all the theory he learn.
Old 6th April 2010
  #223
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post


Nobody said anything about Blues music needing counterpoint or advanced substitutions
The "shining a light on the path" comment suggests that blues musicians could benefit from knowing more theory.
So at least one poster in this thread has stated that.

It was a general comment that implied that any musician would benefit from theoretical knowledge.



Quote:
What I did say is that the structure of the blues ( call it theory call it practice call playing well etc ) does have a 'form' that has to be learned or else it's not a blues. This is the theory of how a blues typically works. Whether you're shown the E7 chord... then the others in the sequence or whether you learned it from a book or a recording it doesn't matter how you learn it it is a structure... a form... its what makes the blues the blues... it has theory whether you see or not.

BB King and others know the structure and theory.. they can probably play the blues in any key.... they know their stuff...that stuff is knowledge based on practice, experience and history.... Its all underpinned by theory.. knowledge that can be passed on and learned

Its all there to be seen from one tradition of music to another..
I am sorry, but learning to play an instrument simply is not the same as learning the theory behind the music.

In the case of the blues people will of course learn the framework (or the rules) of what constitutes a blues song.

But learning a series of notes/chords by heart (or possibly imitation) is not the same as learning how these notes/chords are related to each other in a theoretical system.

Again, simply put, in my world learning how to tune a guitar and learning the fingering of chords (and knowing the names of the chords) is not theory. That is practical learning.

Theory is an abstraction that can be used to explain how the practice works.
Old 6th April 2010
  #224
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilon View Post
ok now i feel really stupid.....

"Scoty beam me up"

It's ok, after all you are in the law business - you are allowed to turn reality into something it isn't ;-)
Old 6th April 2010
  #225
Lives for gear
 
kilon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
It's ok, after all you are in the law business - you are allowed to turn reality into something it isn't ;-)
very true
Old 6th April 2010
  #226
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
To phrase it less insulting:
How would extensive theoretic knowledge have improved the blues?

Answer me that, please.
Combine blues with extensive theoretic knowledge and you get Steely Dan.

Whether you think that's an improvement is up to you.
Old 6th April 2010
  #227
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
Yes that is theory. It's musical education, It's learning how to play...
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it's learning what to play and why. Particularly why.
Old 6th April 2010
  #228
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bio View Post
Education can not only be good :
A friend of mine studied classical trumpet for years.

One day he wanted to improvise, to play in a jazz group, and with his education he cannot,
Why is that surprising ? Its like trying to compare someone who's a trained french chef and expecting him to cook authentic Goan cuisine .... It's not what he was trained to cook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bio View Post
....because he was blocked by all the theory he learn. there is no theory of feeling.

He has to "forget" all the theory he learn.
the problem your friend has is probably on several levels.

1: Not understanding jazz theory which is very different to straight classical harmony but none the less still very much centered on formal use of scales and chords so Yes his understanding of scales is invaluable but its use and application are very different.

2: Having no experience playing jazz.... This is a common mistake that a lot of classical musicians make... they can read what's written and assume that jazz is no different... wrong ! Improvisation is a very different world. getting use to playing what you feel and being creative on the spot based on a fixed harmonic sequence is a light years away from what a lot of straight classical musicians ever experience.
Old 6th April 2010
  #229
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post

In the case of the blues people will of course learn the framework (or the rules) of what constitutes a blues song.

But learning a series of notes/chords by heart (or possibly imitation) is not the same as learning how these notes/chords are related to each other in a theoretical system.
Learning a chord sequence to a structure like the blues is totally a theoretical thing that people use and extend... its structure like many others used in music and referred to in all kinds of music. What's part of the theory of understanding how to play the blues. ? knowing the structure of the chords..... it's a perfect example of music theory.

Do you grasp the basic concept that the structure of harmony is based on common sequences of chords that are related to each other and form common building blocks that form larger parts of musical works and songs ?

The foundations to many songs have common structures and sequences of chords found in other works.

That's all theory.
Old 6th April 2010
  #230
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Grammatics and musical theory are very similar:
They are theoretic constructs that describe and categorize human practices, but that are not needed to actually practice the subject they describe.
Interesting statement, and I'm going to take issue with it as follows.

When you say "are not needed," I presume you mean "are never needed," because if you mean "are not always needed" your statement is trivially true. But in fact a knowledge of theory is sometimes essential for some kinds of music.

Let me be clear about what I mean by "theory." I do not mean only harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, etc., but I am using the term to include all codified knowledge of musical form and structure. Moreover, different kinds of music have different kinds of theory that apply to them. As a simple example, Bach and Bartók wrote in different musical languages, and the theory that applies to their compositions is different.

With that definition, what I am trying to claim is that there are kinds of music that require knowledge of theory--that is, knowledge of the relevant kinds of musical form and structure--in order to write those kinds of music successfully.

Here's an example: I've seen a fair amount of discussion on this forum about how to manage the mixing stage of putting a track together. Typical of this discussion is how to use a spectrum analyzer to be sure that the various parts of the track don't occupy the same audio band at the same time, and how to use compressors and other tools to deal with the problem if your analysis shows that it is happening.

What I've just described is specialized knowledge that is important in order to be successful at creating a particular kind of music. That is what theory is! In other words, mixing, EQ, compression, sidechaining, ducking, are all things about which it is useful to know in order to produce electronic dance music. And if you do know it, you will be much more effective at producing such music than if you were simply to tweak knobs until you like how it sounds.

As another example, I recently went to a staged recital of Shakespeare sonnets in New York. There was music between the groups of sonnets. Afterwards, I commented that I found the music jarring because it sounded so French. The other people there with me were surprised, with the exception of my sister, who said "Yes, it was by Louis Couperin--I saw that in the fine print in the program."

I wanted to know why they would accompany poetry written by an Englishman who died in 1616 with music written by a French composer who was not born until 1626, when there was a huge collection of surviving music by William Byrd, who was born in 1540 and died in 1623. The answer, of course was that no one else had noticed.

The point of this is not to brag that I can hear the difference between English and French 17th-century keyboard music, but rather to point out that the difference is hearable! Which means that these composers' music follows different rules, and that those differences can be heard. And if, for example, you want to write music that sounds like Couperin and not like Byrd, you had better know what those rules are.

I think there are analogous rules for most kinds of music, whether we are overtly aware of them or not, and that the notion of theory has to be contextual, with the context being the community that produces the music (or art, or literature, or whatever) to which the theory is being applied.
Old 6th April 2010
  #231
Bio
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
the problem your friend has is probably on several levels.
his problem was the lack of feeling, it's not something that can be educated, you have to spend hours of playing, you can study as much as you want, you will never learn feeling.

He solve that with percussion pratice, only impro and then he was ok to improvise on trumpet, but the point is education "can" block you because it "can" built wall around your mind. (not that it's automatic but still, there can be disavantage.)
Old 6th April 2010
  #232
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post

Do you grasp the basic concept that the structure of harmony is based on common sequences of chords that are related to each other and form common building blocks that form larger parts of musical works and songs ?
Only in your view.

To me it is just music.

It can be good or bad, but in the end it is just music.

Malian dance orchestras
Robert Johnson
Steely Dan
Coltrane
Mahler
Rammstein
Deadmau5
Gamelan
Gregorian chanting
Andean pan pipe music
Anonymous dronemakers on the internet

How someone trained at a conservatory interpretes the relationships between the tonal elements of all this stuff is of no concern to me.

I listen.
And play.
Old 6th April 2010
  #233
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ark View Post
Interesting statement, and I'm going to take issue with it as follows.

When you say "are not needed," I presume you mean "are never needed," because if you mean "are not always needed" your statement is trivially true. But in fact a knowledge of theory is sometimes essential for some kinds of music.
In some post somewhere in this thread i have explicitly written that very same thing.
My point being that both approaches are good approaches to music - some like theory, others dismiss it.

BTW "very similar" does not mean that they are the same - as i wrote, there are obvious differences between language and music, an important one being that language is dependent on rules whereas music isn't.

In case anyone is in doubt, i wouldn't trust a jazzer who couldn't recite his favourite substitutions when woken at 5 AM with a bucket of cold water over a doorstep.
Quote:

Let me be clear about what I mean by "theory." I do not mean only harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, etc., but I am using the term to include all codified knowledge of musical form and structure. Moreover, different kinds of music have different kinds of theory that apply to them. As a simple example, Bach and Bartók wrote in different musical languages, and the theory that applies to their compositions is different.

With that definition, what I am trying to claim is that there are kinds of music that require knowledge of theory--that is, knowledge of the relevant kinds of musical form and structure--in order to write those kinds of music successfully.

Here's an example: I've seen a fair amount of discussion on this forum about how to manage the mixing stage of putting a track together. Typical of this discussion is how to use a spectrum analyzer to be sure that the various parts of the track don't occupy the same audio band at the same time, and how to use compressors and other tools to deal with the problem if your analysis shows that it is happening.

What I've just described is specialized knowledge that is important in order to be successful at creating a particular kind of music. That is what theory is! In other words, mixing, EQ, compression, sidechaining, ducking, are all things about which it is useful to know in order to produce electronic dance music. And if you do know it, you will be much more effective at producing such music than if you were simply to tweak knobs until you like how it sounds.
Of course there is theory in electronic music - only the theory you describe relates to the production part, and not the musical part (although i grant you that the two can be the same in electronic music).

Interestingly enough though - many times the advice from here on a given technical question will actually be: "Try the settings and hear how it sounds for yourself" heh
No theory needed, just good old practice.

And i am sure that there are loads of electronic music that have been created by just turning knobs and seeing what happens...

But you started this thread and wrote about melody and harmony - so that is what we are discussing - not wether knowing how compression works is essential to electronic musicmaking.

But one thing is certain - knowing how compression sounds is very important for most electronic music makers.
But that is another discussion that could easily reach the dimensions of this thread ...
Old 6th April 2010
  #234
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
I've stayed out of this debate because I think it's silly. I haven't read much of anything since I last posted, but I get little snippets from email.

First of all theory is simply the mind behind how something is done. There is a WAY to play the blues. What, do you think some of those old black (not "negro" or "colored" - those are offensive terms) sharecroppers put their hands on mammy's guitar and it just played? There was and is a way to play it. This is the theory of playing blues. I - IV - V chords, blues SCALES, arpeggiated lines, growls, bends, 12 bar structure, looser in the early days.

There is a way, or ways to play gamelan and there are ways not to. There's ways to play or not play country, bluegrass, hip hop. All of these fall into their theoretical boundaries of their particular domains. There's ways to play jazz or classical music. Sometimes the theory dove tails into other domains, sometimes they don't or are less applicable.

Now as far as what I've seen, I haven't seen this snobbism and elitism that you MUST know theory or your music simply sucks. What I've seen is the elitism of those who criticize those who DO know their theory. And I've seen this increasingly for years now. The pot calling the kettle black thing.


The uneducated want comfort in numbers and to tear down the educated. There's absolutely nothing wrong with knowing what you're doing in anything, least of all music.

Music is great, but it's not all the same. Jazz is different and has different requirements. Techno is great and has different requirements. If I'm going to play jazz, which I do for a living, I have to have a highly train set of skill sets grounded in theory and in many cases reading. In techno I'd need to leave 95% of all the behind. Minimalist. But a chord is still a chord, last I checked. Sometimes there ARE chords, if but one. Ambient structures may still have harmonic content.

Listen, I don't want everyone to be the same. I'm not criticizing others for what they do. I absolutely adore what I do and the music I do. I was just doing some mixes of a concert I played and recorded with the jazz great Bobby Hutcherson a few months ago. There are few guitarists anywhere who can do what I can do and I'm proud of that, but mainly it's evidence of hard work, not talent. I wouldn't trade this experience for anything in the world. I'm sure others feel similarly about what they do. Nobody is trying to take anything away from you. You experience music the way you like to. Just don't try to cheapen it or take it away from anyone else, which is exactly what I'm seeing.

For many, like myself, music is a profession. I do what is required for the gig. Mostly for what I do, good sight reading is required. Instant chord analysis and soloing, with no prep, over difficult and often fast moving chord changes. This is not required in all music. But I get called to play anything in any style, -- acoustic guitar, electric guitar, clean, distorted, finger picking, pop, rock, funk, modern trashy, blues. It's fun. I LOVE it.

Nothing better than feeling competent. Someone might not like what I play or come up with, but there's no question I can play it. I don't have that worried, hunted feeling hoping I won't be put in a situation where I might be asked to play xxx.

Music is a simple language, but it IS a language. There's the base language common to MOST western musics, and then there's the other specific language endemic to the style and function of each genre. I never, to my knowledge, mentioned the word theory early when I was in discussion in this thread. I wasn't even THINKING theory. I was thinking MUSIC. The two are not necessarily the same, but yes, theory is part of music. Even if you don't know what the words are you know the concepts. You know because you can tell more correct notes form less correct notes. You can hear and mistake when it happens. There are reasons for that.

I'll leave it at that.

I'm out. Have at it.
Old 6th April 2010
  #235
Gear Maniac
 
RoyJeeBiv'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?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.
awesome thread. i'll have to sit down with my pot of coffee and read it all, but i'll quickly post my initial thoughts...

certainly the advent of tape machines, electronic synths and the such in the mid-20th century opened up new avenues of musical creation. in essence, the only thing that matters is intent. sometimes i hear 'music' today that has about as much worth as a handful of acorns thrown at a tree -- but it's not up for me (or us) to decide, if that's what the artist intended. such is the case with electronic music that relies more on texture than melody.

but IMO, what that niche market seems to forget is that those historically newer ideas of 'music' employed by Cage and the like are only significant for those who first came up with them...those ideas lose their impact the more people try to get away with them. (for example, have you seen any other worthwhile paintings of soup cans aside from those done by Warhol??)

music needs to evolve. to evolve, music needs substance -- melody, harmony, rhythm. most importantly, music needs structure. almost all of these elements are missing in certain sub-genres of music today. i think some artists are more interested in making people move, and when said people hear a barrage of heavy thumps or sweeping ambient textures coming at them on a dance floor, they happily oblige without even knowing why. some might say we "just don't understand it", but hey, what is a mismanagement of priorities to me is art to another. even still, i don't think these 8-minute long drones can be compared to something like say, bebop, which was also widely "misunderstood".

i think it would be interesting to know the percentage of listeners of (and artists in) these particular electronic music genres who have a background in music theory. i don't mean offense to anyone, but dollars to donuts, i bet they are few and far between. technology has made it so easy for Joe-Schmoe who has never taken a piano lesson to pick up a MIDI controller and 'make music'. some people are so interested in becoming a part of the culture and/or industry without learning how we got to where we are. ask them who Varese was and they're clueless, but mention Moog and they're a friggin' scholar.

so, to answer your question, i think the reason why we hear more 'sound' than 'music' in some electronic music is because several new artists seldom take the time to recognize what makes music so musical, and instead ride the ideas of once groundbreaking musicians and water them down, thinking the rules still apply decades later. i wouldn't call it laziness or naivete...just the way things go when access trumps innovation.

rjb
Old 6th April 2010
  #236
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

I really find it bizarre that some people frown on learning.

Why has sound taken more of a front seat compared to the music ?

.. a lot of people are either too focused on the idea of 'fame' and being a 'producer' that they don't like to explore how to get there or admit that perhaps there is more to it than what they're doing or they simply don't know that they know nothing.
Old 6th April 2010
  #237
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
I've stayed out of this debate because I think it's silly. I haven't read much of anything since I last posted, but I get little snippets from email.

First of all theory is simply the mind behind how something is done.
No, theory comes after the fact.

Newtons apples fell even before he wrote the gravity theory.
People played music millennia before someone asked himself why on earth some tones sound better together than others and formulated a theory on that.

However, once you have a theory you can use that to expand on the original ideas/observations if it is a good theory.

Quote:
There is a WAY to play the blues. What, do you think some of those old black (not "negro" or "colored" - those are offensive terms)
Yes, they are as offensive as the day they were used to deny blacks the right to a meaningful cultural heritage. By discrediting that same heritage (music) through the use of theory...

And isn't that partially why black guys came up with bebop in the first place? To show the whites that they could play far more complex stuff than ever dreamt about by any classical composer or hillbilly country player?
Quote:

sharecroppers put their hands on mammy's guitar and it just played? There was and is a way to play it. This is the theory of playing blues. I - IV - V chords, blues SCALES, arpeggiated lines, growls, bends, 12 bar structure, looser in the early days.
Playing still isn't the same as knowing the theory...

The first thing i was shown on guitar when i was 12 years old was the basic blues shuffle rythm in E (i couldn't even tune my own guitar then) but i learned how to put my fingers on the fretboard and mimic a blues progression without the slightest idea of any scales, chords or other theoretic knowledge.
But i played. Badly, yes, but playing.

Quote:

There is a way, or ways to play gamelan and there are ways not to. There's ways to play or not play country, bluegrass, hip hop. All of these fall into their theoretical boundaries of their particular domains. There's ways to play jazz or classical music. Sometimes the theory dove tails into other domains, sometimes they don't or are less applicable.

Now as far as what I've seen, I haven't seen this snobbism and elitism that you MUST know theory or your music simply sucks. What I've seen is the elitism of those who criticize those who DO know their theory. And I've seen this increasingly for years now. The pot calling the kettle black thing.
No one here has criticised anyone for knowing his theory.

Quote:
The uneducated want comfort in numbers and to tear down the educated.
Paranoid much?
I don't feel a need to tear you down, but you apparently feel the need to tell me that i am uneducated and seek comfort in numbers?

Quote:
There's absolutely nothing wrong with knowing what you're doing in anything, least of all music.
There is also nothing wrong in having absolutely no clue about what you are doing - if you make music in a style where that doesn't matter...

Quote:

The two are not necessarily the same, but yes, theory is part of music. Even if you don't know what the words are you know the concepts. You know because you can tell more correct notes form less correct notes.
You mean that there are actually less correct notes? I am shocked.

...those should be purged from music, right?
Give us their names and we will make sacred vows never to play those notes again heh

Quote:
You can hear and mistake when it happens. There are reasons for that.
Frankly i can't hear mistakes if the stuff played is too far out there. Because i have never bothered learning how to listen to that stuff in the correct way (apparently there is a correct way to listen) so to me it is just another harmonic experiment.
Quote:


I'll leave it at that.

I'm out. Have at it.
Old 6th April 2010
  #238
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Classical theory is totally different and has a different purpose than jazz. Jazz theory is based on PLAYING improvised music. Classical theory is based on analyzing classical works and preparing composers and arrangers, maybe, for professional work. Knowing most of these students won't become composers, the classical theory is not very practical. Classical students are required to READ, interpret and follow instructions from a conductor of what they're reading. Not for playing improvised music.

Now there's a learning curve where it becomes difficult to do all this on the spot THINKING while playing with FEELING. The object is to learn well enough where you don't have to THINK about it any more and just feel or perceive or create. There's a juggling match for the novice musician who is trying to incorporate all this stuff. It's like a young adolescent whose body is growing, awkward and uncoordinated. It takes a minute, depending on the ability and work ethic of the musician, and also the ability of the teacher to teach.
Old 6th April 2010
  #239
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Yes, they are as offensive as the day they were used to deny blacks the right to a meaningful cultural heritage. By discrediting that same heritage (music) through the use of theory...

Ha hA HA HA HA !!! superb..... very funny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
And isn't that partially why black guys came up with bebop in the first place? To show the whites that they could play far more complex stuff than ever dreamt about by any classical composer or hillbilly country player?
Playing still isn't the same as knowing the theory...
WAAAaaa Haaaa HA .... even better ! You're such a Joker grumph.

... problem is that part of me thinks that you might have been serious...?
Old 6th April 2010
  #240
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
I really find it bizarre that some people frown on learning.
Who frowns on learning?
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