Thanks @Ibnv for your responses. I'm glad the discussion has become so subtle.
(and I agree with lots and lots of what you've said)
But you are now guilty of making me woffle on and on and on again!

Clearly, we both agree with the value of 'acquiring relevant knowledge'.
e.g., you said..."we have to learn consiously and intentionally and train ourselves"
I definitely agree.

The subtle bits come next when we discuss what the learning and/or training involves.
Especially, distinguishing between what 'might' it involve, and what 'must' it involve.

In some disciplines, very formal abstract methods are essential.
e.g., we won't learn about serious physics without a lot of symbolic maths.

But in music, I think it's a brilliant array of possibilities,
- an endless number of 'possibly useful' strategies
- and very few 'absolutely necessary' strategies.

So, musicians are definitely better off 'with knowledge' than 'without it' but the 'form of that knowledge' and the 'methods for acquiring it' are very much open for discussion. Even though I personally love abstract music theory, I am very skeptical about any arguments trying to convince me that abstract music theory is essential.
I tried to talk about that in my post here.

I don't believe in the 'ignorant musical genius', Fabulous 'so called geniuses' like Bach and Mozart, put in their first 10,000 hours plus, probably in their early childhoods, and then went on to push the boundaries of what music could achieve. Those guys were dripping important musical knowledge out of every orifice

Interestingly, (speculation only) I don't know how much tutorial material these guys left behind in the form of 'abstract theoretical discussion'. I don't think they wrote any books on music theory, but they definitely, deliberately provided lots of stuff that they classified as teaching material, and it was in the form of 'actual music examples'. Almost as though their approach to teaching was just "learn to play this, and now learn to play this".
For example, consider just one bit of Bach's teaching material. Bach’s "fifteen 2-part Inventions". I don't think Bach provided a teacher's guide or a student's guide or any notes about any underlying theory. It was more like "just learn to play these and then you will know something really useful"
Of course, since then, the music world has generated a million pages abstractly analysing the underlying music theory implicit in those "15 2-part inventions". All that analysis is truly wonderful, but none of it is better than just learning to play the stuff.

I do believe in the '(self)-trained knowledgeable musician' with or without abstract forms of musical knowledge.

I don't believe that musical knowledge 'must be' studied or acquired using abstract forms, but it certainly 'can be'.

I think, for the knowledge to pass the relevancy test, it must translate into 'something the musician can actually do musically' rather than be just something the person can describe in words, symbols or pictures.

I think that the the most important musical knowledge can be acquired....
[1] in some cases, solely by informal hands-on interactive immersion in music (listen and play, listen and play, listen and play....)
[2] in some cases, enhanced a lot by studying abstract presentations of music knowledge.
[3] in some cases, by a great blend of both.

If you skip [2] and only do [1] you 'might' still be a brilliant musician (and there really are plenty of great examples)
If you skip [1] and only do [2] you're not a practical musician at all, but you might have really interesting insights about music.

Personal preference (that's all that matters to me), I'm very much attracted to [3] and I enjoy struggling with it.

 

Last edited: Jun 25, 2019

I think it's a bit (in fact overbearingly) presumptuous of you to assume that "these people live in a state of mystery" when in reality all you are entitled to say is that "in your experience, you were in a state of mystery".

It's wonderful that you are passionate about abstract music theory, and you want to celebrate what it's doing for you

BUT someone needs to keep on banging this drum until you finally believe it...
"Some superb musicians do acquire all the authentic genuine musical knowledge they need
without engaging with any abstract forms of music theory"

and I say that as someone who really loves abstract music theory!

 

With the discussion at this point the name Brian Eno keeps flashing in seizure inducing strobe lights inside my head. With little to no formal training he seems to best represent an unskilled musician of this generation who could compose divine melodies (side 2 of Before & After Science) without knowing precisely how he had done it and who also can be described as somebody MMJ2017 describes as "writing half a song and not knowing how to finish it"... which encompasses much of his ambient work.
Does Eno live in a state of mystery? No, but he mystified me and I think he possibly mystified (embraced his confusion) himself in the 1970's. Of note: he just contributed noises during his two albums with Roxy Music. Any study of non-musicians making music must include him. Since inadvertently acquiring musical knowledge and skills as his career progressed, he has lamented that he gradually began to understand the names of notes and chords on a keyboard because once he knew this he felt that rules had been imposed upon him and a conscious effort had to be made to break them.

 

what about the silence between the notes,is that important ?

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2019

never understood what the circle of fiths is all about...

 

To put it as simply as I finally got it, I did away with the diagram and thought of it this way. You start with a basic chord, a triad, for example C major. The notes are C, E, G. The last note is G. You then build your next chord with G as the root note and form a G chord. G, B, D. If you continue with this process, building a sequence of chords based on the last note, you will arrive back at C major. Hence, you have come full circle via the use of the fifth note of each chord. A circle of fifths.

 

.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2019

I hope your next release of facts are better than these two.

 

.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2019

.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2019

The state of mystery is that they do not have knowledge of music, I thought that is built right into your premise?
The only presumption making is the initial presuppositions built into the argument itself

Let's take a portion of music knowledge and ask if they know it or are ignorant of it .okay?

What is a KEY in music?

Let's take the key of C major A relative minor.
A key is a connection between a major cadence and a minor cadence. The place where they are connected is the link now I will demonstrate this.
1.CEGB
2.DFAC
3.EGBD
4.FACE
5.GBDF
6.ACEG
7.BDFA

First the C major Cadence ( subdominant to dominant to tonic)
Dmin7,G7,C6
The Aminor cadence
Bmin7b5, E7,Amin6
The link is FMaj7
That showsbthe relation ship if all 7 chords in a key the structure of what a key is how it works.
It is either true a person had that knowledge or false that they have that knowledge.
In the cases where it is false , that portion of the knowledge remains a mystery.
The person cannot simply navigate their writing in tune with this knowledge of what a key is how it works . If it is a mystery they can only come across it accidentally not deliberately.

I'm also curious why you are saying " abstract" music theory?
The music theory is a description of how music itself works. That is not abstract that is " specific".
Music theory is the science of music.
Next when I use the word " knowledge"
I mean a conscious awareness in the awake mind of information how a thing actually works propositionally. The information is in a framework of prioritization of a list .
This is total opposite of how the subconscious mind works THAT is abstract . Is stores information in images , colors,feelings,etc
The subconscious mind cannot have knowledge , because that mode of operation has no true or false.
It's why a dream feels so real
It's because to a subconscious it's not about propositions being true or false , it's about transcendent experiences represented abstractly through images and emotions ( which is great actually(
It's just a different language.
The thing is you cannot forget the purpose of learning knowledge with the awake mind is the categorize and prioritize ( for music this means every variation or possibility)
Then store that knowledge into the subconscious to operate in the background.
This means both components need to be there
I already expressed this in previous comments .
You have upto 100 % knowledge and 100% ear training .
A person that has no knowledge how music works but has 100% ear training their total is 50percent.

A person who has 66% music knowledge and 66% ear training has a total of 66% which is higher than the 50% of the other person .
It can be anywhere on the spectrum
However to have Zero percent ( or minimum)
Music knowledge at best can give you 50 percent.
This argument I'm giving is basic and demonstrable .

 

Last edited: Jun 25, 2019

It's spelled Shakespeare.

 

You seem to be almost deliberately missing the point.
So, let's just accept that I have failed to explain it clearly enough.
But ONE LAST TRY!

Let's use just one of your 'described' conventional cadences as an example.
- what you call "C major Cadence"
- what another musician might refer to as just a chord sequence Dm, G7, C
- what a Jazz musician might refer to as a standard ii, V, I progression
- and many, many, many other 'verbal descriptions' and 'symbolic notations' are available

There are endless ways of 'describing' the same thing, but what actually is 'that thing'?
Don't bother telling what that thing is by providing yet another 'description' because that will be - by definition - 'just another description'

Now assume there's a musician who on a fairly regular basis manages to include that exact chord sequence in his repertoire. Over the years he has found many interest variations of that chord sequence, and he has a gut-level appreciation of what a cadence is doing in his music. And let's also assume that he might not understand anything that I have just written and none of what you wrote either.
We can say 'he is ignorant of all of our descriptions' ' all of our descriptions are a mystery to him'
We can ABSOLUTELY NOT say 'he is ignorant of what really matters', or that 'what really matters' is a mystery to him.

So, now who knows what?

You and me can 'describe' all this stuff in pseudo-clever words and symbols and pictures - big deal - so what?
The musician is using 'the real thing', 'real musical knowledge', every time he plays that chord sequence, and every time he explores it further and finds new interesting ways of playing it, every time he does something artistic with it.
And he's doing this without giving a rat's ass about all the clever words you and me are bouncing round on this forum. Maybe he's never heard the word 'cadence', maybe he's never seen a notation like ii,V,I. Maybe he doesn't know what the names of the chords are. Well guess what? he doesn't care. He does know 'directly' how those chords sound and what their musical value is to him and his music.
He is directly accessing real musical knowledge without going the indirect route through a bunch of theoretical descriptions.

There is available to all of us...
[1] "real musical knowledge" (this is NOT pictures, words, symbols or even concepts)
and
[2] "real knowledge about 'descriptions of' music"
Read that again, and again, and again, [1] and [2] are not the same animals.
You seem to be permanently confusing the two but THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.

You seem to be obsessed with [2] (that's fair enough for you, go for it and enjoy)
but you keep on claiming that musicians without [2] don't have [1] and that is absolutely incorrect and becoming a bit insulting to the legions of musicians who just know that you are wrong about this.
And if you try to prove otherwise (again) by publishing a million more pages of [2] (again) then you are definitely still missing the point.

And now, with all due respect, I'm getting bored with restating the bleedingly obvious.

 

Thanks for sharing your view on this my friend.
It's seems Everytime I have this conversation it inevitably leads to talking past the point.
You are talking about one situation and making one point , I am taking about a different situation and making a different point.
I tried to clarify that and you say I'm deliberately missing the point , but it's the exact opposite from my point of view. That You are deliberately missing the point.
I think this really comes down to what we mean by the actual word " music" and " music theory "

I'll try one more time to clarify to see if it helps.

My point is NOT that music the word means creating sounds.music theory is NOT a bunch of terms and rules to follow.
My point is NOT that people cannot make some type of sounds that you me both agree sound nice and are emotional to us as a listener.

My point IS that the word music means the deeper level language underneath the surface level of sound creation .my point IS that every variation and possiblity of a Melody rhythm or harmony cannot be known and used by a musically ignorant person.
Music is every variation of a Melody .NOT a Melody playing over a period of time in air or through speakers ANYONE can make sounds and peice them together untill it sounds good to them and others.
There is a surface level of music ( sounds changing over time with timbre)
And a deeper level of music
Just as a motion picture has the surface level
( Shapes and colors changing over time)
And the deeper level
( Those shapes represent characters and plots and protagonists and antagonists and story development)
Music is identical. Not similar actually Identical.
The surface level is what you hear the deeper level is what information is being transmitted through those sounds and timbres over time.
There is a massive difference between a random shapes on a screen changing shapes and colors over time and a motion picture where those changing shapes and colors represent a deeper meaning a location and people and a situation taking place triumph over evil by the hero etc.
The changing shapes and colors transmit the deeper level.
Music is the same way there is a massive difference with random sounds changing which sound good and sounds changing representing a deeper level a story just like a movie.
If you or anyone else is happy with random shapes and colors changing over time great.
I want the motion picture where the shapes and colors changing over time represent a deeper level full of symbolic meaning like morality and live And loss and the hero defeating the villian. To me ty he deeper level is where it's at for motion pictures AND for music.

 

Last edited: Jun 26, 2019

Here is an image it is shapes lines and colors.
What are they?
We have light blue
Yellow peach black white colors.
There are straight lines and curved lines .
There are rectangles and circles triangles.
Dark colors and light colors.

That is the surface level of this image .
How could we get to a deeper level?
We have to start naming concepts , recognizing patterns .noticing that slight variatuons of the shape still represent the same ideas.

By looking at this this totally different configuration of lines shapes and colors we can see that even though the colors have changed the shapes have changed . The object which can be named with terms is the same object named in the previous image .
There are patterns we pick up on to recognize that a deeper level is present that as much there 8s that has changed. There is something deeper about the lines shapes and colors present in both images.
We have to give terms and names to the things being represented by the colors shapes and lines the deeper level.

Here we have a 3rd image.
The lines shapes and colors are all different again.
But we can recognize that even though so many alterations have happened
When comparing all three images of we come up with terms first " human being"
It is a concept represented by the lines shapes and colors. Next it is the same human being in all three despite nearly all lines shapes and colors being different.
This human being also has a term or name " Jesus Christ"
We can store information about the specific human being by being familiar culturally with what the name represents. And find out it is an important 0ersin to many people. A person who represents hope and love.
This deeper level regarding these images.
Is it something which applies to nothing else but images ?
No this process of getting to the deeper level through the use of symbols and terms and recognizing concepts changing form and the same object presented through many variations and attached to symbolic emotions and ideas.
We use it on everything around us .
Music is identical
Sure if you want to or have to you can stick with only the surface level sounds and timbres changing over time. Just like how i gave examples. above
Staying with the surface level of these images
However IF and WHEN you are ready to get to the DEEPER level of music, come and read my threads.
The deciscion is yours my friends.

 

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news to all you accomplished muzos out there...

Do you hunger for those "deeper levels" - "full of symbolic meaning" and whatever other "life saving goodies" you can find in MMJ's posts?

Well without the salvation of "abstract music theory" (and MMJ's version of it) you will be forever denied access to these.
You might as well burn your guitars and smash your keyboards because your refusal to "see the light" will forever bar you from achieving heavenly bliss.

Ain't life a bitch !

 

Last edited: Jun 26, 2019

Only in the same way that if you look only at the shape of a letter take letter A
AAAAAAA
A triangle with extended sides on the bottom
Or letter D
DDDDDDD
A line combined with a half circle
If that is as deep as you go with English language you cannot write or read very much.
I already described images and movies .
The same applies to everything on reality .
If you stay on the surface level
( Your always welcome to if you choose)
Your only going to be able to scratch the surface
If a car is just a rectangular shape with curved surfaces, you just touching the surface .
If a computer is just a square box to you if a cell phone is just a rectangle with shiny surface.etc.
Everything in reality works this way. It should be no surprise that music also has a surface level and a deeper lever. After all music is considered ART right?


As far as your comedic accusations if blah blah my specific version of X and z , these statements are only as true as any situation information about the deeper level of a topic is presented about an area of your reality and your response is to belt out accusations in the same form. I know your not so sense that you belive what your accusing me of. No this is a specific
Psychological response of doubling down on your point of view ( even though it is a different subject and topic ) than mine. Your not deliberately creating fallacies for example " strawman fallacy" on purpose right?

 

Last edited: Jun 26, 2019

I am going to take the English alphabet.
Next I will look at the shape of each letter.
Finally I will choose the letters based on how they look to me only and try to assemble them based on how they look.lastly I will make an argument that this approach yields just as passable results as any other way you could combine letters.
That it cannot be improved by looking at the deeper level okay? Here we go .

AFDTyghfUIFhbvcdfh Ev T Ujhcxdjy FFSg$^#^

This combination of letters is as good in EVERY way has just as much meaning and value as the paragraph above it. I am going to make a second one. Ready!

Gtjfv jjftuTgj%#@*ibdimvfjgcgh

This will be available for purchase for 99 cents okay?
Because it is ART
I am taking the letters based on how they look to me and putting them next to each other based only on how that combination looks to me. Here is another one but longer this time.

WvnvhjhWhhh uuu III jj dimvrj wweeee hfhlvfjnf
### @22^58^6666699754367ruig6uUt^5go8hfthj

This is art right?
Because I have this method that is just as good as any other way to assemble letters.

1.begin with all letters.
2. Going by the shape of the letter that looks good
3.combing shapes that look good together in a way I feel looks good to my eyes.

Final thoughts
" Use your eyes!"
You see it's all about the eyes here whatever looks good to the eyes.

This type of letter ART is worth paying for AND
It is just a good as other ways of assembling letters.
I love letters do much they mean do much to me they are my LIFE.
Therefore I will use this method and dedicating my life toward selling my letters and trying to get famous to make money and have sex with strangers. Here is my gift to you a free price of art
Remember it's " all about the eyes"
This peice is " minimalistic"
Pay attention to how emotional you feel during the time you look at at !

RRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr AAAAAAAaaaaaa
RRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrttty AaasaaassAAAAS
Yyyyyyyytttttttttyrrrr. HhhhhhuuuuusaaAAS

There is no way to assemble letters which is better.

 

how do you know? - the statement is dangerous as it implies you have a certain determination over what someone else's reality is.

 

Last edited: Jun 26, 2019

Describing music with words is like fu*ki*g for virginity (a twist of the original, older wisdom).

And about all this banter about the above, literally, ignorance is bliss (more older wisdom). Master Mazzaroth Jehoshaphat has 2017 ways to make turn my head away from the shadowland of "Huh?" and into the living, breathing light of beauty and all of its colorful splendor. You might too.