beeing a theorist is not less legit than beeing an instrumentalist or a composer.

and if someone is a heavy autistic and has fun sorting numbers, it is his right to do so and noone needs to put him down only because he has never won a motocycle race.

and while i am a self-thought and eclectic with a strong anti-academic background myself, i am not sure if picking out the two self-thought musicians lagrene and reinhardt can serve as a good argument against theory, because many of the most successful superstars have studied music - theory as well as training playing their instrument - for years.

 

So by your logic, an art critic is the equal of a great artist? A film critic as important as a great director?

 

I don't think it's about whether someone is categorised as either/or practitioner or theorist.
It's about respecting every aspect (emotional, spiritual, intellectual, ...) that music invites us and enables us to explore.
Bartok got a mention earlier in this thread.
I would regard Bartok (for example) as... (at a minimum)
- A great composer
- A formidable pianist
- A very innovative theorist

Do I have to elevate or denigrate any one of those aspects of his creative life? or should I just I humbly respect them all equally?
What I should never do is pick the one aspect that fits my comfort zone and then defensively criticise the rest.

 

no, i just thought that, given that this is the "education" forum, it is not neccessary to play off theory and practice against each other.

the threadstarter never said he needs to explore this to become a great composer - that seems to be only your connotation.

btw. did schönberg and reich actually had talent?

 

Was this really necessary because George31's point of view contradicts yours?
The thing is nobody has put up their own playing in either audio or video format on this thread so far, and this was unnecessary because if that is the criteria, nobody is exempt. If that is the criteria then everyone could be equally accused of spouting superfluous rhetoric and being a strawman but that solves nothing which this thread has shown more than once.

I am probably in a different country to everyone here but this much is evident.
I also know which country he resides in and who he plays with and he is no charlatan.
While I can use the identical diatribe as everyone else because I am certainly old enough and have enough degrees to know what speaking in technological terminology looks like to an onlooker, I choose to speak in plain English.

Does anyone know what truly smart and intelligent information is?
Wording something so someone who knows nothing about a topic ends up knowing something useful at the end of the discussion.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2021

Look, my dears!

The goal of all these discussions is music itself. Theory is for music. Musical instruments are for music. Every thought and action that's done is for music.

Is it aimed at demonstrating theoretical capabilities? Is it aimed at demonstrating playing capabilities? Not definitely.

Having theoretical capabilities or being a good player is no guarantee of making a good musical. Music has a lot to do with the auditory part of the brain. The theory and capabilities of playing relate to other parts of the brain. In many cases, it is very difficult to communicate between all these sectors. No one can claim that because the logic and reasoning part of his brain is powerful, then he will definitely produce good music.

Most of the time, the theory that we've learned is not very useful in music production, because music production is a decision in the moment. Remembering all theories and implementing them in the moment is an impossible thing for a human being. Even supercomputers and the most powerful artificial intelligence are unable to do so.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2021

@Hermes Mercury Use the edit button on your double post and delete one or add different information or an emoticon. If you do not, someone is bound to report it and it will end up being deleted for you and possibly both of them depending on how the moderator feels at the time.

 

Then what is the point of knowing and not doing? As @BaSsDuDe stipulates, one must be able to show ones understanding through the expression of the medium. If anybody here can learn something from the last fifteen pages, should it not become a valuable resource to the musicians repertoire? Yet you maintain that "it is not necessary to play theory against performance" and if this is correct, what manner of dreary world of music would we be living in where clubs have no performers, but tables full of people shouting their theories at each other.

 

Yeah that's such a crime
Why should I read a science book? I'm not going to be a scientist?
Who needs to know we're living in a galaxy; it's not like we're going to visit another one.
Why should I care how a virus works - I'm not planning to be a doctor.
Let's scrap all this trendy "on-line education for all".
The only stuff you need to know is the stuff you use to earn a living; 9 - 5 each day.
Learning anything else is totally redundant and just means you're being an intellectual ponce.

Oh hang on... "what manner of dreary world" would we be living in?

 

Every learning must be used or otherwise that learning will not be useful and will be forgotten. At all, the main reason we use a method is because it is not forgotten.

Learning any science or any method if it's merely just to learn them, will soon be forgotten by the brain. Unfortunately, the process of brain learning and when to learn and how to use sth is one of nature's most complex secrets.

No one can provide a model for optimal learning and use, which is why in schools, a lot of lessons are placed in front of the student and forced to take them, but the process only ends here and no one helps the student in the next stages of applying those sciences.

How to use science and turn them into products is never publicly taught on the Internet. What is taught is the science itself, not how to use it to produce the product. Because that part is the business part of the case and it always stays secret.

 

Completely misses the point.
While you're composing, playing or improvising, then (most of the time) you really shouldn't let 'thinking about theory'
enter the picture at all. It would (most of the time) be just a distraction that ruins the creative process.
BUT
All the thinking you do about music theory affects your brain somehow.
Your subconscious will spit out the consequences one way or another and I don't believe that process is ever detrimental.

There is no difference at all (in principle) between putting in the effort to learn simple stuff like what the notes are on your instrument and putting in the effort to learn about some really weird complex music theory idea. It all makes a positive difference.

But at the times when you're composing, playing, improvising, then of course if you're thinking about what the notes are on your instrument you're in a bad way, and if you're being distracted by theory then again good luck!

Of course music itself is the jewel to pursue here, no-one doubts that; but all the theory bashing in this thread is just puerile.
I think everyone engaged in music theory bashing should examine their motives more honestly.

 

can we get back to expanding the tonality range?

 

You are capable of more than a sarcastic reply like this and you know exactly of what I speak in relation to knowing something about music and expressing it as opposed to the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake.

Perhaps you can name some famous theoretical practioners of music theory who cannot play any instrument yet are revered solely for their knowledge which resides only on paper.
This is sarcasm and it adds nothing to the topic.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2021

Respectfully Lenny, sarcasm felt like the only answer to all the strawman style bashing you've been throwing at music theory. And we do all know and respect that you are capable of far more than that.

Fortunately, neither you nor me will stoop to mud-slinging, we will both focus on the ideas to argue about.
So just as a calm and serious comment/question...
I, like you, will prefer 'knowing and expressing' but not in opposition to 'knowing for its own sake'. What could possibly be wrong with the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake? It is actually what's tragically missing from schools and universities and I can't see why 'for its own sake' would ever need to be defended in a forum thread that is explicitly about music theory; the thread can and should accommodate knowing for its own sake AND practical applications.

I would, of course, concede that discussions illuminated by examples are more useful than abstract only discussions, and the thread does contain a few such examples. For example, I learned something from the analysis of Girl from Ipanema - but I also note that it was the referred to video that taught me something.

But some of arguments about 'playing credentials' found in this thread remind of me being 10 years old when laughing about who could piss over the highest wall.

Cheers Lenny.

 

I completely understand that there are a lot of people in the world who love the analysis aspects and love the written word and theories about almost anything. In music they are called musicologists.
I also completely understand those who simply like to play, compose, orchestrate and arrange music and nothing else, they are called musicians. I also understand people who like to do both. They are called composite musicians.

That said education encompasses such a broad term. You have separated the factions of music yourself in many comments and not incorrectly.
However, one or the other of a non-composite form is normal for them to want see their side of the education equation or see it from a different perspective (and sometimes not).

I do not see this as a flaw or a platform to insult their requests, but I do see it as a flaw in the forum not being separated into correct educational areas so the expressiveness, whether theoretical, demonstrable, performable or whatever the case may be is in an area of its own where it attracts appropriately. It will not solve every issue for sure, but it does remove all excuses.
Of course they have similar qualities but they can also have polar opposites when it comes to application, or only be usable under specific circumstances.
As a tiny example of the latter, a wide-spread E13 stacked in perfect 4ths - Totally reasonable and sounds great in an Orchestra or BigBand but unplayable in this form by a solo Pianist unless they have 12" fingers with massive gaps between each finger. So theory = yes, playable = in ensembles, performable by a pianist or single instrument in this full form = no unless only by editing the voicing.
E, G#,C#.F#,B, E,A,D (I,3,13,9,5,1,11,m7)

Education in music is separated into solfege, arranging, orchestration, composition, performance, theory and more areas for a very good reason. As for who can piss over the highest wall the answer is always the same, the one that can do it. there are no examples of ANY post author or thread author doing it themselves to demonstrate, only others doing it and anyone even a primary school student can do that. ...i.e. put up links of other people doing things they are claiming as their own knowledge.... That is like the strawman in the pub in "Good Will Hunting" claiming Nietsche's phrases as his own...so the wall example is a moot point.

Some things in music learning and extrapolation meet and some things are 'never the twain shall meet". It's a category error. I do not blame anyone for their points of view. Indirectly everything has been grouped together on this forum when it really should not be.
Cheers AH

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2021

I don't think there is reason to argue but instead contributing to the post, it's very odd reading name callings, ad- hominems, sarcasm and opinions about music theory and other stuff (off-topic) or the declarations about human correctness, etc.

Tuxor and Tom Jobim added very interesting things, please keep it that way and get back to the topic

 

OK cool,

I pointed out before that a very possible expansion could go using or borrowing some Pythagorean/natural harmonic notes, now I am more programmer/mathematician than musician so sorry for use messed terminology, also not really fan of western music or western music theory, so warning lol.

I pointed out that playing with "out of scale" sevenths, ninths and notes around the perfect third are the way to go, just because mathematically and by ear the notes sound much more harmonious while dissonance can be minimal, until dissonance is really needed as with the minor chords or all chromatic notes can be all useful, but I am trying to make sense of the harmonious ones as there is a clear math on them.

The most important of all is the harmonic seventh or perfect seventh, in TET 12 the worst sound some from the seventh as it's pretty far from the harmonic seventh by around 40 cents, that is why when playing bass or the lower octaves in any instrument seventh sound pretty bad (wobbling sound), so there is an immediate fix, in piano it's impossible but in guitar or any string or "fretless" instrument, can be easily done as finding the harmonic sound is rater easy (just bending a little to find the no wobbling sound, the bending should be done in the VIIb or seventh dismished or minor, not sure about the right name, anyway the mayor Pythagorean seventh 835hz with the harmonic seventh 770hz in comparison with TET 12 G 783.9hz and G# 830.6hz, sorry it's still a bit messy hard to understand) Probably the easiest way to understand is for people that play violin as depending of the scale or if the minor note corresponds to a flat or a sharp, instead of dividing the whole tone by 200 cents it's divided by 9 commas so one corresponds to 4 commas and another to 5 commas



Pretty unorthodox right? but not in Indian classical music, see and listen how this immediate sound pleasant while is a little bit out of 12 TET

"Classical Indian" music sound like this (video at bottom), and well I love this song, I meditated many times with exactly this one and sometimes I understand what the flute is talking about and I can see things, natural landscapes and some deers!? it's almost always the same, there are few songs where I can translate the solo into some kind of language, ok that was crazy.

Some facts about Hari Prasad Chaurasia is that he is doctor in music not just Indian but also western, I think he is teaching in some university in Europe or it was, other interesting thing is that a Doctor in indian music is also sort of a spiritual master as traditionally there are 4 fields of study to be a guru and music is the most rare, but also leads to some spiritual enlightenment (probably you can feel it in your bones xD) a weird thing about the personal life of Hari Prasad is that his father was a popular wrestler and he wanted his son be a wrestler too not a musician, at the end he trained a lot when was kid and the side effect was that with all the training he developed enough muscular strength to play that flute that is the hardest in India to play as you really need to blow very strong to get the best sound.

This song is rather long and slow paced but check at 24:30 the solo is so fast paced and interesting

 

Last edited: Jun 29, 2021

@GabsIT this is really great that you are into this. From working quite a bit with musicians born and bred into this in the originating country, they do not think of music exactly as westerners do. They also translate western music into theirs as well. They also have different terminology to western music which you indicate you know. This is one tiny example and considering the depth of their music which is far deeper than western theory this is very tiny. This is how they fit western music into theirs (very basically). I imagine they probably laugh at us trying to fit an untempered structure into an equal-tempered one. While I love combining music ethnicities I respect them for their individual nature. Some structures in Indian music both North and South, I accept as their own entity far removed from western justification because like a lot of Arabic music, it is closely tied to their religious beliefs. Each to their own

Sa - Shadaj (Western Equal Tempered: C)
re - Komal Rishabh (Western Equal Tempered: D♭)
Re - Shuddha Rishabh (Western Equal Tempered: D)
ga - Komal Gandhaar (Western Equal Tempered: E♭)
Ga - Shuddha Gandhaar (Western Equal Tempered: E)
Ma - Shuddh Madhyam (Western Equal Tempered: F )
ma - Teevra Madhyam (Western Equal Tempered: F#)
Pa - Pancham (Western Equal Tempered: G)
Dha - Komal Dhaivat (Western Equal Tempered: A♭)
dha - Shuddha Dhaivat (Western Equal Tempered: A)
ni - Komal Nishaad (Western Equal Tempered: B♭)
Ni - Shuddha Nishaad (Western Equal Tempered: B)
Lower Octave or the Mandra Saptak is depicted by a single quote (') before the Swara. For example: 'Sa, 're, 'Re, 'ga,
'Ga, 'Ma, 'ma, 'Pa, 'dha, 'Dha, 'ni, 'Ni.
Higher Octave or the Taar Saptak is depicted by a single quote (') after the Swara. For example: Sa', re', Re', ga', Ga',
Ma', ma', Pa', dha', Dha', ni', Ni'.

The funny thing is we place a great deal on the word RAGA which is derived from 'Ranj' which simply means to please or gratify. This is very much at the core of it, but we westerners complicate something that they are simply raised with because we were not raised with it and it looks complicated to us when to many of them it is simply a way of life, much like Martial Arts as we call it is simply a way of life, health, well-being and healing in many Asian countries.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2021

@BaSsDuDe I played or tried with some Ragas on guitar but it was totally different to what I can find now on internet
There where many Indian scales that had 1/4 tones, but 3 were playable as the minimum was 1/2 tones (I will try to find it later)

Both three had a special feature, having 1 1/2 of tone interval sometimes 2 of those large intervals, the only popular sound (that I know) playing in one of those scales was Kashmir from Led Zeppelin.

Playing chords with those scales is pretty odd,

John McLaughlin did great stuff mixing scales, he used one strange combination that is not mayor, not napolitan nor harmonic scale.

I also tried microtones TET 7 19 31 and it's interesting, sometimes when playing I feel that there should be some notes between certain progressions and microtones helped me to get used to other tonalities, quarter tones etc, anyway it's not magical, it's rather harder than 12 TET, that is why I changed my mind to try a virtual instrument play based on maths or specific patterns, there is a lot to learn and try, what I am visualizing is that instead of playing defined notes/frequencies my idea is to play intervals or chords based on the current tonic so pressing the same key will continuously jump into fifths or thirds or some other rare intervals that could be tested I am trying to make a proof of concept in Javascript so can be used and shared pretty easy, probably this will take some time tho.

There is a very interesting programmer/musician that is doing a lot of microtonal music and also helping people to use microtones, scale worshop is a cool app developed by Sevish

 

Last edited: Jun 29, 2021

it is highly questionable that we had instruments without theory.