Before insulting I would try at least to get the meaning of what is written, not that difficult after all.

First off, you can write straight to the sender (me) instead of trying toss him (me) to the crowd and trying to deride him (me).

Second:

and that's exactly what I meant (and you corrected yourself): of course piano is a perfect tool to get the basics of music theory because of its linear layout where it's much easier to see intervals and pitch, LEARNING to play it is another matter.
Third: TARGET is the key word: if I want to play some Beatles song I'll focus on that, chords etc, and if that suffice, good.
Said that, I wouldn't say that I LEARNED piano, just some part of practice that i like.

I add that I play piano since many many years even if for some long period I didn't, still I'm not preapared to achieve my targets.
I just finished to read (one of my targets) Winter Wind and I can play it as it should be just for the first half.
Long way up, dude, I'm still learning, and to do it I don't sleep, I never stop to learn.

BTW I wouldn't even try to make symphonic compositions with just the basics.
To answer the OP ther's already the answer:

Bye

 

Sorry if you misunderstood, I'm refering to the ORIGINAL POSTER, OP, who seems intimidated by even learning and wants someone to hold his and from zero to a hundred.

I think we may be aruguing around each other, I agree with your assesment of the piano as a musical learning tool..

 

How has this got to being 4 pages? the reason always seemed obvious to me.
May be I work with to many clueless people who need tutorials for everything.

Tutorials are written for beginners because we all know the level of understanding a beginer has, which is none.

What level of understnding dose someone who's advanced have? what about someone who's competent?

If you guess and guess wrong, someone will complain.
So the only answer is to add the extra 10 minuets of explaining to dumb it dowb to the level needed for a beginer.

If you already understand the topic skip the first 10% of the tutorial video.

 

Why are almost all tutorials for beginners?
Because people first take a look to the beginner tutorial of someone else, then it replicates for get some visualization and monetization on youtube or udemy, in fact those tutorials (for make music, learn theory or djing, make a film, learn to fly....) are mostly the same in content (and sometimes are also bad/wrong in concepts/methods), that are the basic that you can learn by yourself with some application and patience. Tell me, are stupid those people that attend music school/academy that need at least 5 years ? 80% of the professionals involved in making music, attended school and trust that if you're a good musician, is the academy itself that place you.And for sure no one will tell you that for place a song, you must contact 3650 labels and send 6750 demos out (now fortunately via mail, 30 years ago there was just the registered mail, would you send 6750 at $5 each and maybe noone will listen to it). I laugh for those people how makes tutorials because they believe they are professionals (sure someone may be), then you realize that the most they get is some money here and there. Make money with music and djing is another thing.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2024

IMHO you get wrong what a tutorial is.
Lets take that "now I wanna do a symphony mahler style" of yours.
You can learn that. Takes about 5 to 6 years and is taught at your local music university.
And they don't even start from scratch. because if they take you as their student you already can:
Play one or two instruments, classical piano is mandatory.
You already can compose. On paper. With a pencil. No Piano.
You can note down something that is played on a piano (up to 4 notes at a time, sth like left hand bass, right hand chords and melody.
Some universities even want you to write down clusters.
You have a fundamental understanding of music theory and history.
they gonna check out all of that for about two days.
If you're lucky enough to be accepted, bam, severel years later you can write quite decent symphonies.
How would that fit into a youtube tutorial?

 

You absolutely got a point there. I'd even say most teachers out there are far from being top notch.
Top notch ain't got no time to teach.
(not talking about that guy with the guitar lessons, i mean people who teach composing on universities. hans zimmer got no time for that)

 

Of course they do. How else do you think a "pro" learns new technologies and techniques? If that were true then professional industry certification wouldn't exist. Do you perceive a ceiling to knowledge that "pros" have reached so therefore have no further need to learn?

Can we finally put this nonsense to bed?

https://www.juilliard.edu/faculty/directory?division=1

 

This troll game is strong!

 

Every “big” and successful individual has 3 jars in their backpack.. filled with their own blood, sweat and tears.
Time is free depending on what you spend it on so it’s not in the backpack.. I mean every being on this planet get free time and what we do with it, is our choice.
We can make time valuable or just waste it on watching others succeed(nothing wrong with that).

If you think people are going to share their knowledge they’ve struggled to gain then you are a child.

BUT, I do believe that people here have a lot of knowledge(musically) maybe not top notch but still a lot. If someone need to solve some problems and are serious and passionate about what they are doing, then people here is going to push you in the right direction.

 

Wow what an active thread! Not going to comment, I'm' just leaving this here and grabbing my popcorn.

 

Follow me on X then join my secret Telegram channel and buy my exclusive course that will teach you everything you need to know about everything.

Offer is not available to boomers aged 50 and up since they already know everything.

 

Some things can be made with experience, but some things can never be made without training and learning advanced principles and techniques.

 

Are we talking about notes ?

 

You are completely lost. Do you really think glass-covered business skyscrapers are the pinnacle of architecture?

You seem to be obsessed with how impressive something appears as an indicator of value, but you (probably) don't have enough knowledge to judge it as an insider/expert, nor do you analyze it through its function, nor as an art historian - so, basically, you are confident in creating absolute value hierarchies, but they are only based on how impressive and megalomaniacal something seems at first glance.

 

Back when that brick building was constructed it was probably as state of the art as the sky scrapers decades (if not a century later. And as aesthetically pleasing too as utilitarian commercial buildings went. There's also the HUGE element of budget. It's a terrible analogy.

Would it be your contention that the older building on the inset was built by someone who watched a tutorial?

 

The issue of making something is complicated.
We can talk until tomorrow about different issues, old and new, beauty and worthlessness, etc., but the main issue of this thread is not about aesthetics. Everyone can interpret beauty as something, because subjectivism is unfortunately always with a person and does not leave him.
The physical world outside of humans does not work with aesthetics. Aesthetics and the appreciation of beauty is something unique to humans and we don't have such a thing in nature. I do not want to enter the aesthetics.

The main issue of this thread is about the size and scope of something. In this thread, I mentioned that the bigger the size of something, the less training is provided to make that thing. It seems that the capitalist world does not want everyone to know the secrets of making great things. The internet is vast, but everywhere you look, it's the same. Everywhere is only dedicated to small things, and when something is going to be bigger, it seems to be removed from the internet, and no special training is given about that big thing.

 

Oh! It's a capitalist conspiracy to deprive you of information! Now I get it.

The truth you don't seem to want to accept is that on almost any path of educational pursuit there comes a point when you have to go to specialized people and pay them for the benefit of their knowledge that THEY also paid someone to get.
But, that said, if you go to a major library you can read extremely advanced textbooks written on most every subject. You can educate yourself into a PhD on pretty much anything if you ACTUALLY want to. It generally requires drive and talent. But just saying "why aren't there YouTube videos to jam this into my head??"- that don't work.

 

this claims to be an answer to what I asked you?

 

Oh, I don't understand why this needs to be said but music is not architecture (even though I've heard that you can dance about architecture). One requires a knowledge of physical materials and physics, the other does not. It's just a ridiculous, stupid analogy.
I also don't recall there ever being a lawsuit because people were killed by a faulty symphony although maybe the riots of the premiere of Rites of Spring come close.

 

For my experience, if someone want to make subcultural music ( techno-house-trap-hip-hop etc etc), can learn everything by himself the old school way, in the 80-90's there was not tutorials on internet so the only way was attend a school or buy a basic notation book just to understand scales and modes, a cheap synth and fiddle to understand, now times are changed and go fast but see a video of 5 hours will never learn you like "the old school way", sure if you want to read a symphonic score and play with an orchestra, the only thing you need is attend the conservatory. In practice, what I mean is that you can find the basics for free on the internet, without having to pay a lot of money for an interactive course, I would rather use them to buy a keyboard, tips and tricks come with experience and there are a lot of tricks in music that no one will tell you, you learn them only by applying yourself.