I do not doubt the knowledge imparted by MMJ2017 but he reminds me of the period when I was about 15 when I became transfixed with music. I loved music so much I dropped a class at school to study music. Imagine my disappointment when it was as dull and colorless as a math class. MMJ2017 talks and talks and talks like a school teacher, sapping the joy and spontaneous fun of just listening and playing. I left music classes after a few months. Without a single ounce of understanding of harmonic entropy I have composed complex music with many accomplished musicians around the world, so I wonder how vital the previous 21 pages are? Like me, are you failing if you don't grasp it or don't care?

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2019

Thank you for sharing I appreciate it.
I spent more time of life making music ignorant of how it worked so I make no judgements.
It's just after a while I got bored with the same old thing , I decided to study music history and musicology . From origins of African drumming 20k years ago all the way through learning about music history along with the inner workings of the styles at each historical period gave me incredible inspiration. And I learned that great music was timeless . And that human generations didn't matter young people get old and old people where young once . All these things have me a holistic view a larger framework and I began to share what I learned whenever possible .
My intent is to share and ignite Sparks of inspiration
Although sometimes I will fail .
I just do my best.
I appreciate anyone's love for music.
But those that are seeking knowledge maybe having hard time finding what they looking for or cannot afford it . I just try to help them
Thank you for your time.

 

I have heard this thing expressed before, that trying to learn music theory and language was full boring person couldn't or didn't want to do it etc.

It's the same as learning a new language because music is a language , it works a certain way.
Music exists on its own merit.
I'm happy with the desciscions and choices people make under their free will, but The way I experience it is excitement about uncovering how music works .that learning every single possiblity and option is building myself up to become fluent in the language of music .
This isn't about creating one beat or melody that's good or that can make money , I'm sure all humans at least have that capacity in them
For me it's about that moment in time when I make a beat or melody.I can know every single possibility. Every variation that can ever be done.
With that knowledge I can choose in the moment out of 1000 options the 1 or 2 that perfectly express my inner experience . To create music in realtime as good as music that took me 6 months to write when I used to be ignorant of how music worked.
I accept anyones version of their own love for music as valid .
My type of love for music is
I love it for what it is and how it already works
It's not about using music as a tool for some other reason .
I love music itself .
When I can make music perfectly matched with my inner state (because knew everyposdibility as ND chose the exact one that matches that second.)
I feel a true connection to consciousness , real freedom, real expression. I feel alive.

 

.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2019

We have a section in the forum where users may share their music. I have shared music I made in 1981 (in ignorance) and I have shared music I made last week. (still largely in ignorance) I would love to hear the difference between what you describe as the 'same old thing' and something recent which highlights how you have incorporated the various musical techniques with which you have acquainted yourself.

 

Slightly related to what you're discussing here.

Music theory - does it matter?

Music as a Language.
Here's an interesting bunch of 'academic' words - let's call them 'Language Theory'
[Semantics, Grammar, Syntax, Sentences, Nouns, Verbs, Pronouns, Adverbs....]
If you wanted to know 'how spoken language works' you would need to study these.

Everyone that has ever lived worked out how to speak pretty well without knowing anything about Language Theory.
I know almost nothing about Language Theory, it doesn't stop me blabbing on and on and on
It's totally possible that Shakespeare might have known almost nothing about Language Theory.

For me, personally, I think exploring music theory makes me more capable as a musician than I would be without it.
I would probably be interested in music theory even if I wasn't a musician.
So, that's just a personal bias - I just like struggling to figure out how the nuts and bolts of music work,
but, for me, exploring music theory is entirely different from working out how to express myself musically.

I know some musicians who know very little about music theory. Some of them play 'much better' than me. That includes one (beautifully weird) guitarist who can't tell me what chords he's playing, gets pissed off if I try to explain them to him, who insists that we just 'shut up and play', and then wipes my arse on the floor with how well he plays. On a more subtle note, I think my guitarist friend does actually have real knowledge of music theory buried somewhere in his subconscious, he just doesn't know or care about how to express that knowledge in words - he just uses it instead.

So, whatever approach works for each of us, enjoy it.

 

Last edited: Jun 24, 2019

I'd rather hear somebody's music than have them describe it to me. Isn't that the point of music? For us to hear it? You say you think he's a guitarist? I've asked him many times to show us what he does. I'm interested if his mastery of theory returns results. God knows he must have written an encyclopaedia of music on this site, but again writing a book of music doesn't equate to hearing one note of music.

 

Not me, sorry to mislead. In my post I'm talking about people I've worked with. I'll edit it to make that less ambiguous.

 

The thing is a baby starts learning from time born all the way through till about 12 years old the spoken language fluency .
This is all music theory is.
You take about naming things but that is how the brain works. We use words as a container a shortcut.
If I say " human being"
You know what I mean instead of my listing trillions of living cells the organs the bone structure the blood vessels all the way through .
So everything is like that in reality.
We name it and describe it .
But regarding music and people connecting to make it .you have 2 components at work.
The knowledge portion ( doesn't matter what words you use to name it as long as your brain understands the puzzle peices and how they fit together)
And second ear training , which means is that person's ability to hear the 88 notes know the sound of each of them and memory of hearing note combinations and recalling that later. This component . Can be done with no knowledge the brain does it on its own.
When some people are babies they exposed to sophisticated music since birth and they get perfect pitch as they develop their spoken language at same time.
Two languages at once their spoken and music ear training they learn to hear 88 unique notes and any combination of the notes can be recalled layer

Babies they don't develop perfect pitch when they grow up have to learn relative pitch. Hearing notes in reference to a starting note.
This is why some people with no music knowledge can be amazing musicians compared to others around them with some music knowledge but less good ear training.
Think of it as every person has
1.0 to100% music knowledge
2.0 to 100% ear training.
It is always the combination of these two things that make a person however good they are.
Let's say person A
Has 33% music knowledge
And 44% ear training
And person B
Has
Zero music knowledge and
100% ear training ( perfect pitch is 100%)
The second person still adds up to more than first
BUT
Let's day person A has
55% music knowledge
And 88% ear training ( high relative pitch)
And person B has
Zero music knowledge and
100% ear training { perfect pitch}
Than person A will be better every time

 

I made a boxset of some my music
From the years 1996 to 2002.
It's Jamendo.com
Artist name Jacq the picture has black makeup when you search there around 2 cd set worth of songs.
That music is from when I had zero knowledge of music theory at all.
At that point I had only learned to play instruments, live sound , recording .
I had not learned production mixing or engineering yet those I learned next.
Then after those is when I dedicated to learning music theory and musicology
After you spend time listening to my very old stuff I'll make something brand new for you to compare

 

So you have carved the music space up into two components
1) ear-training
2) knowledge of music theory

My first problem with that is I guess lots of musicians here would want to include many more categories, a lot of important artistic aspects are missing from this 'just two components' model.

But leaving that major problem aside, and granting that I have no problems with the ear-training part of your discussion,

I still have a problem with the 'knowledge of music theory' part.

I want to unpack your phrase... The knowledge portion (doesn't matter what words you use to name it as long as your brain understands the puzzle peices and how they fit together)

Let's discuss what you mean by "brain understands the puzzle pieces"

If that means someone needs to be able recognise pictures, labels, descriptions, and be able to talk about it all, then I just don't agree.

I think a brain having subconscious (non verbal) access to those puzzle pieces is sufficient.

And I think some musicians gain real access to those puzzle pieces, not by studying theory, but by interactively saturatating themselves in actual music. They just engage with a huge repertoire of music that they like to play, and absorb the puzzle pieces without ever being able to describe them.

I refer back to my guitar friend in my previous post, the guy who really can't tell me what chords he's playing! If there's a slightly complex chord in what I play, I can bet he will play something (immediately) over that chord, that fits perfectly. If I analyse what he did, I might find it's some interesting inversion of what I just played. Where did he (immediately) get that chord inversion from? The point is, he has a lot more than just a good ear that he has picked up without formal knowledge, he has hands-on immediately available access to sophisticated harmony, i.e., 'real music knowledge' at his fingertips. What he's missing is just a verbal language to describe it, and he really doesn't care about that.

So, I'm rejecting the idea that the only thing this musician has managed to pick up informally is a good ear. My harmony example above is real music knowledge. Needless to say the same goes for rhythm, melodic phrasing, modal soloing, and any other musical components you regard as part of music theory. I can verbally (or with diagrams) explain all of those things in ways that would baffle my friend, but my friend can 'use those concepts hands-on' to express himself at a level that I still aspire to reach.

 

It's certainly very competent for the genre. Although I'm so removed from that genre, I don't know what that genre is. But I heard a lot of interesting rhythms and melodies and I can see that a layer of theoretical knowledge in combination with this raw framework you could achieve something quite remarkable. Master Mind Jack?

 

Thank you my friend, those are really old stuff but I think you can see why a number years I ago I decided to expand into including and building up a strong music theory knowledge .
Looking back on those songs I'm not ashamed by any means but ive grown so much musically and a large portion was to dedicating learning music theory ( how music works).

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/VqChvnY3hypGurQ37

 

Now here's a great example of how our minds work. Your old profile pic was reminiscent of the guy who does our plumbing. I have to admit I'd be reluctant to accept advice about music from him. Unclogging drains, yes. Phrygian modes, no. But you look like somebody who is academically obsessive compulsive and I mean that in a good way.

 

I think this is crucial..... by interactively saturatating themselves in actual music. I have just come across a piece of musical trivia that suggests the earlier this happens the greater the possible outcome should one decide to pursue music. Both guitarist Jeff Beck and bassist Chris Squire were heavily involved in church choirs in their youth and both were self taught. To be part of a complex choir requires a set of skills that may lead to this subconscious understanding of harmony and non standard timings. Many of the concepts forwarded in theoretical mode here would be beyond the comprehension of many 9 year olds, but to be immersed in an environment where a good choir master can guide a receptive young mind and surround them in the experience and therefore learn by interactively doing is invaluable.

 

This component is hugely important.
But I also believe that we have to have some way of categorizing and describing in the consciousness any particular musical choice whether rhythm melody harmony so that we can mentally visualize every possible variation of said fragment. We need to have the subconscious ear training and then the rational brains ability to list and prioritize .
When these two aspects of self musical self can connect the person will have full capacity to experience " musical inspiration" fluently .
Imagine you pull a music fragment out the ether
And the moment you capture it you see it in your minds eye sitting in a folder of 1000 objects .
Each one is a slight variation of said fragment , but the entire folder with every possibility you can select the exact fractal variation which corresponds with your internal state.
When this is acheived you can write is realtime what might have taken months without that knowledge component .
All this is due to our main two psychological components.
The subconscious storytelling self and the awake rational information self.

 

There are people do amazing at making music but cannot describe what they just did they don't know what it is how to describe it. I call this musical ignorance just without knowledge.
These people live in a state of mystery bouncing between inspiration and writers block , writing a half of song and not knowing how to finish it.
There nothing wrong with any of that of course some may even enjoy that .

 

Sorry, it's not absolutely correct.

First point. Yes, we learn language by an imitation. In majority of cases. But if we want to speak or write fluently, beautifully (like Shakespear) we have to learn consiously and intentionally and train ourselves. Or to be geniuses. Compare Shakespear' writings and writings of someone else and you'll see that not all people are "Shakespears". And as I understand Shakespear was the first, before him nobody had written like him. It's relatively easy to be like Shakespear after Shakespear. And very difficult to be Shakespear. Almost impossible. I could say the same thing about Bach.

Second point. We speak and write more or less well because of an education in schools, universities etc. It includes language theory. We speak well because we can write and writing requires more consentration and analysis (the first steps to theory). It influences our oral speech. Any trained and educated writer or speaker usually is better than untrained and uneducated one.

Third point. Music is very similar to language but they aren't identical. Language is absolutely important for our survival, music isn't. So, we all learn language, more or less. We'll die without it. Music is a different beast. Many people like to listen to the music but no so many of them can play or sing. Listening to the music can be productive as a source of an education only if we want to play (compose etc.) like musicians we listen. The majority of people listen to the music for pleasure. They scratch the surface. It's not an (self-)edication.
Musician can know almost nothing about music theory. But "almost" is a key word. He usually knows notes, scales, chords (it's theory). And all our instruments are based on music theory. Guitar has strings that have to be tuned up and frets, piano has keys. Is it totally arbitrary? No. It's music theory "dissolved" in our instruments. We can't play staying absolutely ignorant about music theory.

But being educated in music theory isn't bound up with playing or composing. There are brilliant theoreticians who cannot play or compose music and vice versa. These things coexist in an limited number of cases only. Somebody uses ears (or intuition, name it yoursef), somebody uses brain and somebody uses both.

 

@Ad Heesive

About your friend. Do you know what occurs in his mind when he plays the second chord? It's not the first time when he does it. He just aren't able to explain what he did. But it is almost impossible that he isn't trained. I think guitar is very-very important part of his life, he spent and spends many hours, days, months with it...

May be... Theory isn't words. Not necessarily. We can think by pictures. Words are intermediate weapon. When we do, we don't speak. We speak when we reason, try to understand etc.