At best that might be occasionally true. At worst it will be regularly false.

'Music' Knowledge and 'Music Theory' Knowledge

No decent music ignores Music Knowledge
Lots of great music making can, and regularly does, ignore Music Theory Knowledge entirely.
(and you cannot just dismiss music that's made in this way)

So, for the 'practice of music making' the two concepts might occasionally be inseparable but are absolutely NOT always inseparable.

Even in cases where the 'practice of music making' does require both, it is still essential to distinguish between the two when describing and discussing that music making, which is what we are doing when we write words.
Otherwise you inevitably end up with statements which are hopelessly ambiguous.
You may feel the statements are true when applied to the 'vague' combined category (music knowledge + music theory knowledge)
but when you unpack the ideas you may find the same statements exposed as true for one and false for the other.
There are NO advantages to describing and discussing them as a combined category and many hazards for doing so.

 

So in that comment for where I described music theory in which I combined the theory and the knowledge.in that context the entire comment was about the internal human perspective.
Mainly the connection of the subconscious mind and the rational mind.
Now in that context of ( from the view of the internal human experiance )
The music theory and music knowledge get combined into 1 category .mainly because you have the information component yes, but you also have all the ways to use the information component.
Now in that context I don't believe you can separate them easily ( only in certain context.)
However from a externalist view is where I would.
For example speaking about music theory outside of any human experiance as in the information itself on its own . Then you have the music knowledge which is still in the human experiance.
( I roughly call this how to use the patterns and information.)
So I distinguish between the human experiance and the external information with music theory .
Where as music knowledge is always in the human experiance.
In that original comment though that situation was speaking strictley from inside the mind experiance.
I hope that helps with what I was getting at in terms of the rational mind vs subconscious how they both have to participate in different ways in writing and experiencing music.

 

We don't have a definition of 'information component' and that may cause communication problems.
(without that I don't want to venture further into rational vs subconscious, etc)
What I write below is not a definition either, but maybe you can use it to provide one.

A thought experiment...
Two musicians - guitarist (G) and keyboard player (KP)

KP says... we're going to play in key of C and play a standard ii V I
G says... I have no idea what you're talking about.

KP says... OK, we're going to play these specific chords Dmin7, G7, and C Maj7
G says... I have no idea what you're talking about.

KP starts playing, he plays the Dmin 7, and the G7 and then...
G joins in - unprompted - by playing CMaj7

Who 'knows' what?
What and where is the information component?

Clearly G has enough music knowledge to
- recognise the Dmin7,
- recognise the G7,
- recognise and anticipate the probable move to CMaj7 next
- and he knows how to 'make music' with all of the above

What he's missing is just the abstract descriptions, the wordy vocabulary, the symbolic representations, etc.
But he's got what really matters (to him), in his head, the actual Music Knowledge.

That thought experiment presented just a case study.
By referring to the specifics in there, please clarify what your terminology is referring to
e.g., 'information component', 'ways of using information component', etc.

===

I'm done today

 

Clearly you don't but that's your problem And I don't mean that in a mean or snarky way. It is what it is

 

I don't agree with that.
So the reason why is
What the key of C Dmin7/ G7/ Cmaj/

That represents something encoded in the symbols similar to E= mc2.
Yes you can derive a particular equation from E= mc2 in a situation but that is not knowledge of E=mc2.
So on the instance if key of C major
Dmin7/ G7/ Cmaj/ or ii V I
For short.
The information is that any Instrument covered in all octaves for each chord . Then each place you have that chord ( which covers all octaves )
You have all 3 chords ( where each covers all octaves (
And finally you have the component of how each note from 1 chord travels to then next note of the next chord .
All of that is what ii V I means.
If a person does not know all of that.
( Let's say a person thinks Dmin7
They picture 1 type of voicing in 1 location.
That is not what Dmin7 actually means .
What they have in that instance is 1 representation of Dmin7 but they actually need to see all notes covering covering the instrument in every octave then they need to see that happen for Ii V and I then finally any place they see a note of Dmin7 in the instrument how that note moves to the next note of the upcoming G7 and then how that note of G7 connects to the next note in C Maj.
This is critically important.
Because this is the information embedded into
ii V I in C major. When you unpack it.

So no I wouldn't say they have knowledge of ii V I in C , if they could make 1 voicing of a chord then 1 place where they made 3 individual chords to make sound. Because ii V I the symbol does not represent that. It represents the whole Instrument covered each chord , then connection between chord to chord such that the integration of voice leading , inversions , across all octaves for drop2 , drop3, drop 2&4, this is all embedded into the symbol
ii V I , and gives the person all the information to be able to create any melodic movement and motion in any direction .
So in summary.
Dmin7/ G7/ Cmaj/
Is similar to a physics equation , such that the information contained within describes all the information needed ( once fathomed )
Where the player or writer understands every possibility that can be expressed ( even if they haven't practiced all possibilities physically ( conceptually what it means to be ii V I .
So an instance if a person knowing 1or 2 things to play in Ii V I is not having knowledge because they are unaware of the possibilities .
( Which is embedded in the nomenclature. Once unpacked )
This is very critical , because a progression acts as 1 object even though it is made up of smaller components.
If you know every place on the instrument where
DFAC are for Dmin7 ( all inversions all octaves (
And same thing for upcoming chord ( G7 in form of Bdim7 G#BDF)
Then you also know how any particular note in Dmin7 moves to the next note in Bdim7 and from that to the next note in Cmaj( represented by Cmaj6). What you have is every possibility.
You know have the knowledge to to create any melody or harmony ( attach any rhythm )
To represent Ii V I.
For a person to not fathom every possibly means they don't know the information component.
( Thats what Dmin7) G7( Cmaj) really means.)

 

What I mean is there is no scientific evidence that any human being ears can hear patterns in music for which they haven't spent time developing their ears with . ( If you don't have the knowledge it and and haven't trained your ears , they cannot be " good" in that specific area )
This is a fact about the nature of reality and pattern recognition.
Just like you cannot walk into a cave meditate and just have all the information shoot into your brain about a Intel i7 processors core layout in trace specifications { because you have to learn it first to know it } your ears cannot in any way have information magically come to them.
It's not the way reality works .
Just like no baby is born understanding a language .
We have to learn the information then we can learn what it sounds like .( You could also just learn bits and peices of something and no information but that's so far from having good ears )
For example say your ears are used to 2 Voicings of Cmaj6 chord and they don't know the name.
That's not good ears .
Because all the other Voicings in all the other octaves your ears won't know that's all still C6 , 1 thing , 1 object .that's bad ears you have to specifically develop " ear training "
Look it up on YouTube
" Ear training "
And why it even exists.

 

Last edited: Jan 8, 2020

This is basically a semantic argument really, going in circles. Again, it comes down to learning to make music vs. learning to discuss music- two perfectly valid, but different disciplines. Just like learning to paint, vs learning how to write treatises on how to paint.

 

Taking nothing away from your instruction... there is a different type of theory learning and it can be done purely by ear and sound. The evidence to support this is in past and present blind musical heroes.
Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, George Shearing, Art Tatum.... had to learn theory completely by ear, mostly by playing.
We take our born gifts for granted. As exceptional as they all are/were in their own fields, I can only imagine how much harder they had to work to develop their other skills without the facility to see. Huge admiration.

 

I am not sure that formality is appropriate. I can see why you suggested it, to separate the two. The two can mix. For example, some guitar tutors do it by the show and copy method and others by notation. Both students can reach an identical goal, only one is less formal.
You can teach someone the principles of composition formally and theoretically and they may well write something great or nothing but regurgitated cloning. You can also teach it by a demonstration which is informal and the same things can occur.
As you mentioned semantics and I do not disagree, but there are differing degrees of separation.

EDIT: You can teach people how to make music. Practically is often the most favored choice using synths/keys, vst's, DAW's, guitars and other instruments, but it can also be taught with theory and most importantly - a mixture of both. If this was not true all the instructional videos out there, thousands of them, would not demonstrate these two. You can learn how to make or understand, or both. Semantics perhaps but they can be separated or intertwined with discussion or without it.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2020

Discussing it is only important if you intend to teach.
It's not any particular name of things that matters it's just understanding the way everything fits together .
But you really cannot know that unless you name the patterns and the way the patterns fit together a specific way .

So what do you think Amin7/
Means if you see this tiny chunk of information?

{ Amin7/}

What is the information component of this nomenclature?

Do you believe the information to be 1 particular way to play those notes?

The information is NOT that.

Amin7/ is ACEG

A note C note E note G note.

The information is that the entire Instrument covered in these notes all octaves .

Next you have 4 basic forms of Amin7

ACEG
CEGA
EGAC
GACE

These are the inversions .
Next you have these basic voicing types .

Drop2 , Drop 3, Drop 2&4

Now , when you combine all these levels of detail like puzzle peices in the exact order and location these puzzle peices fit.
What you have is any area or location of an instrument. The whole thing is covered in A minor .
( And by knowing the main Voicings
Drop 2 ,drop3,drop2&4.)
You are Able to create any original voicing for Amin7 in any octave .
All of this is what .

{Amin7/}
Actually means in real life.
I have described to you the information component of this nomenclature such that anytime you see a chord like that your mind should instantly unpack these levels of detail and the context in which they fit .
Finally , by knowing this information you can do things with the information that could never be accidentally done by a person who does not know music theory .
For example .
Say me and you meet up first time you on piano I'm on guitar . We don't know each other or what we about to play except a scrap of paper which displays this

{ Amin7}

And we have to play for 25 mins.

By knowing the actual information ( as I explained before )
It is possible for us to play endless amount of music that never even repeats itself twice only playing
Amin7 for 25 mins.

There is absolutely no way possible for a person who does not know music theory ( internalist perspective here ) to do that. All they are going to be able to do is come up with 1 or 2 fragments of ideas and repeat it over and over .
What you gained by studying music theory and building music knowledge , is something that cannot be gained in any other way possible.

 

Last edited: Jan 8, 2020

I have seen a lot music music education that explains in what date so and so named a particular pattern.
( And then not continue on to explicitly say how that pattern connects to the others!)
To me that is not what I mean by " music theory "
I don't mean by that term.
" How humans have come to find out aspects that they know fragments and bits "
What I mean by " music theory "
Is 1 Grand unified theory .
The information itself of how music exists on its own in reality ( before humans even enter the equation .)
That's the externalist perspective
" The information of music "
Or the science of music .
Then there is a totally different music theory .
From the inside of a human experiance, internalizing that information as it really exists,
Then being able to use that information.
( Music knowledge as as heesive would say .)

 

✨

 

I would just say, that teaching someone to play say a Melody or riff .
Is teaching them to play something. 1 thing 1 way.
That to me is not teaching music .
For example ( in terms of learning the English language )
If you teach a beginner how to say this exact sentence .
( I would like to go to the store .)
And they get it and can say it .
They have not learned " English".
What would qualify in this situation is for them to take " the store " , and create 50 sentences each structured and sounding different and different lengths etc. All about " the store "
Couple examples.
" I need groceries"
" Hey Bob, want to go with me to the market ?"
" I really need to buy food "
" I hAve to run errands, because I ran out of my lunch meat that I need for work on the weekdays "
" Hey honey, can we stop and pick up things for dinner later?"

Now in the same way , being taught " music"
Is being taught how the information component works . It's not how to play 1 lick or riff .
( You need to know every possibility , even if you haven't yet practiced it.(
Because playing 1 melody or riff in 1 moment is not music , that's 1 tiny possibility .
Just like 1 sentence is not the English language .
The English language is every possible way to express unlimited sentences with the concept " the store " that is the reason which I constantly describe music as being a language.
It literally is.

 

If you see.

Cmaj6/

And you know that , what that means is a entire Instrument covered in all octaves every location which them notes appear,
Then you know that it has 4 main inversions .
Then you know the main Drop2,Drop3,Drop2&4
Voicings.

What you gain by knowing this information ,
Is a way to play any melody that has ever existed.
You can play any song you ever heard .
You can play any melodic contour you envision.
( Yes any melody but from the perspective of that form Cmaj6 .)
So if you think of " happy birthday " song which is in G major key , you can play that melody just shifted down a 4th.
And this works for any melodic contour you ever heard in your entire life.
This is what .
Cmaj6 means when you see that symbol
{Cmaj6}
.
The implications of this are that by learnings the forms like this one in music then how they connect.
You are able to create anything inside of any moment in any context .
This is so very different to a person who does not have this knowledge of what Cmaj6 represents.
Let's say they " think "
That what { C6} represents is 2 places on a Instrument which they play in an exact way .
This is so far from what C6 actually means for real.
That is stratosphere of a difference.
The person who thinks of C6 as meaning 1 or 2 tiny chords.
They are only slightly above another person who does not know anything about C6 .

Contrast this with the person who knows that
{ C6}
Really means a whole instrument covered in those notes with 4 inversions per octave and all octaves then the main patterns of drop2,drop3,and drop2&4 Voicings .
This person by knowing this can come up with infinite number of variations in harmony melody cascading melodies contrapuntal etc
They can spend the rest of their life creating new things from it that can got in any situation ant context any genre any tempo any Instrument.

This is such a difference , that all you can say in comparison is that a person that can play 2 or 5 things representing a fragment of {C6}.
Does not know {C6}
They essentially have a cariacture of Cmajor that's it
They don't know what itself means and the information encoded in the symbol .

 

So when we take a form like Cmaj6 .

And we play in a moment of time 1 particular thing from Cmaj6 in a song .
That was 1 possibility amoungst a incredibly high number of options .
Let's say we are with a bass player.

And this bassist happens to play
A walking bass representing the form {C6}
In quarter notes 4/4

CEGBCCGC#CEGBCEGA

So there is a certain way that different types of instruments use the form , and the way the information works is different for the bass than a piano comping in Middle registers rhythmically with voicings highlighting harmony and melody.
Comping in 8th notes and quarter notes with swing accent of syncopation .

Next if you take a person soloing with a Melody.
( Single notes at time )
The way they use the form {C6} works a bit differently as well because you have
Arpeggios
Scale
Grace notes
Enclousures
That get combined together to express a unique melodic layer.
In 8th notes combined with triplet's and syncopation occasionally with quarter and half notes

When you combine all these layers you get something greater than the some of it's parts .

Now it's important for us to understand how each of these positions fullfil.
We need to know how they work ( because each works in a unique way regarding how the information from the form is used )

Now what " music theory " ( the way music works , not arbitrary study of dates and so and so named something but instead the patterns and how they connect to each other in forms )
What this gives a person.
Is unlocking the door to music where every possibility is available to you such that you can treat music the way you treat your spoken language .( We don't speak for the sake of hearing sounds it's a means to an end for " meaning" and purpose communicating what is inside of us .
Transmitting information )
And connecting to other human beings showing them you exist .

Without that study and understanding
You are instead making sounds
( You are just dealing with the surface level of toying and playing with sounds , not expressing yourself what is inside of you on purpose for a important reason )

However if you develop an understanding of how to build up a song with the form for each Instrument layer, as well as breaking down a finished song down to it's separate layers and form.
While also understanding all the possibilities for the form . Music becomes an entirely different thing to you than plinking around some sounds
It's a entire language to express feelings and ideas from within that could not be expressed any other way

 

Last edited: Jan 8, 2020

It's a very complex issue that you can take any 1 aspect and talk forever lol.
For example as Artificial Intelligence develops and technology in general , we are going to see jobs lost to automation .
This one tiny issue alone is devastating to human beings ability to be in the workforce .( Not to mention those who cannot be in the workforce )
There is a lot of issues at play in such a complex issue. However one I don't seeing playing any significant role is whether money is " backed by"
Some element from the periodic table .
( We don't even have a compatible system of money creation that would support that to begin with .)
If we were willing to make changes significant enough to make it possible, we could instead make other more impactful changes regarding the monetary system ability to meet the requirements and needs of human beings in society at large .

https://www.federalreserve.gov/

 

To be a "musician" or to just play "music"......Billy Joel summed it up nicely back in the 70's.

James, we were always friends,
From our childhood days
And we made our plans,
And we had to go our separate ways.
I went on the road-
You pursued an education.

James, do you like your life,
Can you find release,
And will you ever change-
Will you ever write your masterpiece.
Are you still in school-
Living up to expectations, James

You were so relied upon, everybody knows how hard you tried-
Hey, just look at what a job you've done,
Carrying the weight of family pride.
James, you've been well behaved,
You've been working so hard
But will you always stay,
Someone else's dream of who you are.
Do what's good for you, or you're not good for anybody, James.

I went on the road,
You pursued an education, James
How you gonna know for sure, everything was so well organized.
Hey, now everything is so secure,
And everybody else is satisfied.

James, do you like your life,
Can you find release
And will you ever change,
When will you write your masterpiece.
Do what's good for you, or you're not good for anybody, James

 

Yes it is, a universal one. You can put ten musicians from different countries into the same room who cannot speak anything other than their own native language, but they can all read music. They can communicate through music.

 

This not directly connected to the topic , but because of several conversations has previous with people ( and it also ties in with information component )
I just thought wanted to share this because I think lot people find this interesting.

And also to the person that was talking about chakaras and Channing alien energies.
This is even more interesting ( connected with reality itself )