who the hell you talking to mmj?

 

Wow, I'm surprised at this.
I'm trying not to think anything about it that you must be going through something .
I just hope whatever it is gets better and you feel better and that it's works out the way you need it to.

As far as Mozart , we know he started very young was exposed young to lot music that was a big thing. See I don't want to act like I know something that I really don't about.
But I just can't belive it's that difficult for you to understand my point.
Something else bothering you .
If I look at Mozart.
I can only say my perspective of it .
Because I can listen his compositions and see the patterns he chose
It wasn't random things that make no sense.
He chose patterns relationships.
That create exact feelings.
Makes me believe he had those feelings inside of him and whatever er the reason.
His brain could look at shapes and see a person head or a building.
Well his ears heard these patterns .
I
Shocked that this that controversial to you lol.
I mean ea g note is a vibration per second.
Each color of the rainbow is vibration per second
So for him his mind treated treated that element the same yes different organ but on e the information from the eardtim reaches the brain it's a electrical signal .he drew out patterns like the electrical signal from the eyes hitting brain.
I actually never met a person until you that thought that was controversial.
This is all talking about the physical body .
How his brain could do what he did.
Well it follows his brain must have processed ear drum signals abstract at least enough to form patterns like we do with eyes or taste scent etc. Right we take pattern and label it abstract
Like " sweet" or " hot" or " happy " sad"
For instance it would be impossible for him to do what he did if all ear drum signals registered a random sognal. To his brain.
He organized these vibrations and filtered through his human experiance .
He got feedback from those around him constantly.
The real issue to ask is.
What allowed it?
I'm not sure but I think it was the combination of everything from generic to environmental to personal relationship to feedback around him starting young as well.

 

He's talking to a bunch of inferior beings who simply do not have the mental capacity to occupy the lofty realms of intelligentsia that only a few like Jacq are considered fit to breath the rarefied air that would simply choke us on its complexity.

 

What the hell are you on about ?
Where is this coming from?
I didn't tell at anyone or say anything like that.
Your not feeling good I'm sorry but don't act like that please.
I'm here doing what I am I'm not in a theory conference with phds laughing about people that don't know music .
I'm hear giving information away form free talking explainig sharing .
It's sounds like you heard me say something you didn't agree with or expect or like that's fine .
But don't go down this other path of creating a character out of me I'm a real person.

 

Is nothing to you more than a question of science? Will you some day write an equation with the correct number of vibrations to allow a computer to compose and excel Beethoven's 9th?
You suggest I am going through some sort of trouble? If being emotionally connected to music and loving that connection is my trouble, then I gladly will keep my trouble rather than break it down into mere neurological stimulations.
Go, embrace your love of patterns.

 

I think you're a troll who uses music theory as bait to create interminably long threads to stroke your own ego.I don't think you have any altruistic motives at all though you like to pretend/assert you do,you are often insulting and demeaning in your responses to other posters and dismiss anything that contradicts your own semi coherent ramblings now please,please,please press your ignore button as regards my posts in future.

 

I'll try to clarify more.
You don't need theory to create a song that others can enjoy.
But there's this whole other internal world for the person themselves .
If you are on a path were you want to do music for life continue to grow advance .
You probably are going to need theory at some point.
Unless that is you find yourself completlely content
Where you are and your passion for music is not weakening over time you never run out fresh ideas your happy with what you play.

See it all depends your goals and path of life.
Is it a fun hobby?
Is it your life dedication you compare yourself to the greatest in history you sacrifice all else for music to advance everyday ?
Those so different and there are many paths different directions .
Do you want create a billboard chart song or write a song that's remembered 700 years from now?
Do you want to play in a existing style or invent a new style for each song everyday ?
I always mean what I say in a specific context.
It's never 1 shoe fits all situations .

 

What do you think emotions are?
Neurotransmitters ?
Signal sent around the body ?
A lock and key situation with receptors?
I speak about that because insight into it is helpful .
If you want to hear about emotions being motivation for music Creation yes that is true
I just don't know how to give anyone something valuble to use.
However this I can say for sure can help people.
Pay attention to how you process information.
Because whether visual patterns you conceptualize as one object. Whether you watch a movie .
Ask yourself
" How the hell am I getting this story from a collection of lines and shapes made by pixels ?"
I did this very young it occurred to me to pay attention .
I realized that a system was at the heart of it
That system itself of compressing sensory information.
I found ways to use it in all kinds areas with my ears with my thoughts with my emotions.
Not reading out a science book.
I'm trying you what I went through that enabled me to do music in a expanding way.
It was taking everyday information processing
Concentrating how it was happening.
Recreating it with my ears like my eyes did
A circle was a shape of head with 2 circles for eyes peach color skin.
I was paying attention these things I found out for all the body it seemed be this one system.

Which was taking a whole package of information
Then compressing it to a symbol or metaphor.
Then you can move that around and travel back and forth
It's like a folder in computer
This as I would layer study is just how our brain works as a system .
So it's no small point to tell you hijack your everyday process now apply it to your eardrums.
It really works .
Music theory is that.
Yes a certain way name things in music theory .
If you came up with it yourself you'd name things differently but that's just the symbol.
You can control your brain this way.
You dont just do this on accident like vision system .
You can do it on purpose too.

 

Last edited: Jan 11, 2020

I will repeat something from my original question.
Did Lennon/McCartney have more impact on the music world with no ability to read music and no formal theory training or has Yo-Yo Ma, as a brilliantly trained master of his Cello, but no ability to compose, had a greater impact on the history of music?
The answer is clear. The Beatles will leave a legacy that will be remembered when a very accomplished cellist is long gone. So much for his theory and skills and training. This is a fact, not my opinion therefore my statement that all the theory in the world will not guarantee you a place in the Canon of musical greats is accurate and not up for debate.
Check mate.

 

My ONLY criticism of your comment is that it's been said here a million times already in a million different ways, some of them very subtle, many of them very insightful; and all of them bleedingly obviously 100% true.
Regrettably, none of them have penetrated the weird distorted blind spot of the person who craves to find salvation for himself (and arrogantly for all of us too) in the relatively impoverished world of music theory abstractions. (and to repeat ad nauseum - I personally describe music theory as relatively impoverished and absolutely NOT essential - while being a genuine enthusiatic fan of music theory)

Embarrassingly I'm going to quote myself again from my above post where I made an error and have now corrected it.

So, like @the real Pict above, I am now guilty of repeating the same obvious common sense, from just another perspective, and this will, as always, fall on the same deaf ears (pun intended!). Stand by for three pages of distracting emptiness to hide the sane criticisms.
@Crisis - I feel your pain

 

WRONG WRONG and WRONG. - AGAIN!!!!!
No matter how many times you pretend to acknowledge that you have understood the difference between music knowledge and music theory you ALWAYS follow it up with blatantly demonstrating that you either CAN NOT or WILL NOT accept the difference.

Musicians can, and regularly do, accomplish vastly more with their subconscious (non-abstract) music listening and music making skills than you ever want to give them credit for.
You say "you need a shared description to...to play together fluently" - what total bollox - you don't need a 'description' at all!
You need a description ONLY when you want DESCRIBE - by definition? How is that not obvious to you?
And describing music is not the same thing as making music and is not a required feature of making music.
You only need words, symbols, pictures, concepts, theories when you want to describe or discuss music,
not when you want to ACTUALLY DO IT - IN SOUND
Of course it's easy to become obsessed with words, pictures, symbols, etc, when you want to seriously discuss music, or heaven forbid, when you just want to woffle on about it aimlessly in forums.

Your personal perspective on this very simple idea is absolutely back to front (or ass about face as some would say)
and is refuted by almost everyone that could be bothered to discuss it here.
Why is this?
Is it because your own subconscious music making skills hit a brick wall?
Have you since found some progress and some salvation in music theorising? If so, then good for you, carry on theorising.
But give up on this utterly insane idea that this is how the world must be for every other musician - it is NOT
Your entire stance is as absurd and as narrow minded as someone learning to speak English as a child and then assuming that English is the only way that humans can communicate. Even if music theory is helping you, recognise that your crazy deluded personal bias is NOT.
There is enough evidence in your posts to suggest that you have the required intelligence to break out of this insane bias.
But sadly there is also an abundance of evidence that your psychology is going to leave you trapped in this mega delusion forever.

---
Listen to myself ,
who cares anyway - it's entirely your loss - and yours alone - why should anyone here care at all?

 

Ad heesive, you make your points eloquently and succinctly and I'm sorry that I reiterated what has been stated ad infinitum my exasperation got the better of me I too enjoy the discovery of new ideas and approaches(well new to me) that the study of theory can bring(I'm sitting here with Persichetti's book in front of me along with several other theory books)but when I come to putting dots on staves or playing an instrument, I focus only on making sure I notate or play as accurately as I can the music I hear in my head.That "head" music is not produced by elaborate theoretical cogitation (in my case) it's just like tuning into a radio station the music is there waiting to be heard.Sometimes when there are too many disparate ideas on the page then I use theory to solve the problem of creating pleasing transitions between those ideas.I don't start off thinking I must include such and such substitution or modulation I simply follow the flow of inspiration and use theory to keep the flow going if it slows or gets blocked. Beethoven was plagued by frustration when composing constantly correcting himself and rewriting whereas Mozart apparently just wrote what he heard in his head almost instantaneously but the results were all that mattered in the end regardless of how the final piece was arrived at.Thelonious does much more for me than Oscar Peterson they apparently disliked each other and they were as different as could possibly be imagined pianistically Monk was once asked what Jazz meant to him his reply was "Freedom"

 

That's a nice account of some of the ways theory can help us and influence us.
I'm sure if we all piled in with anecdotes about how theory personally and practically gets used it would be genuinely fascinating.
Like you, I could never regard composition as formulaic, - "follow these rules A,B,X and watch what comes out".
It's always more like, "theory goes in; has some weird impact on what's going on subconsciously and might eventually have some equally weird impact on what my subconscious music generator does next". I also find theory useful because my mental analytical skills are are too scruffy. I can hear stuff in my head pretty well but if I try to just mentally analyse what I'm hearing - it's very unreliable. I need to go to a chordal instrument, either keyboard or fretboard, and make it happen. It doesn't need to be played well, but dabbling with the instrument is the only way I can remove the vagueness and let me accurately describe what I've been hearing. That 'describing via an instrument' is very helpful to me and the more theory I know, the better I get at that. But in both cases I know guitarists who know almost no theory but still play guitar infinitely better than I ever will, and pianists who know less theory than me who play piano infinitely better than me. So, although theory really does help me personally, it would be ludicrous and outrageous for me to suggest that other people need theory or want it in the same way that I do.
I have occasionally also done this... I've learned an aspect of theory and thought something like "So if that's true then I wonder what this (thought experiment) would sound like" and so, I've gone to a piano or guitar to find out - and been pleasantly surprised by something interesting. Then a few weeks later I find my subconscious inner music generator spitting out something that I can trace back to being a wonky, flawed version of whatever that music theory experiment was. I'll take an event like that as an occasional accidental bonus.

 

Interesting my approach is pretty similar on instruments in fact I find the limitations of different instruments and my lack of ability on them to be quite inspirational at times I sometimes come up with some really nice musical fumblings.Also I'm a hoarder of serendipitous mistakes I positively cultivate mistakes which is just as well because I make plenty of them. Aye I couldn't agree more with you regarding the subconscious it's amazing how what you learn is regurgitated in some mutated form of the original concept.If we want to get really restrictive there's always 12 tone matrices kind of hard to mess them up

 

Worth learning? Certainly.
Time to learn it? A completely different story.

TBH I have zero theory knowledge and it might be showing in the tunes that I publish here from time to time.

Would I be able to write better songs if I knew some theory? Yes, probably but life is too short as it is therefore I prefer to spend it doing what I love.

 

Aye theory to music is a bit like a swiss army knife is to camping having one is useful but not having one wouldn't stop me going camping.

 

From my experiences working with the best and knowing some of the best and knowing how they work, people who come to these forums to "ejaculate" their knowledge on commoners are either unemployed and have too much time , others are people with self esteem issues, trying to sound important.
People who teach usually can not write and vice versa, it is the case in 90%. Theory can be learned very fast and then you can sound smart on these forums. Greats do not have the time to "teach", they work.

 

Music is to be enjoyed FULL-STOP.

This thread indicates a whole pile of people who have raised all the reasons why so many people say "I'm not interested, I only want to listen to it (or play it) so please take it somewhere else."

As for equations, there is a video demonstrating that equations can generate something musical. I do not think it is useful as anything other than a novelty. Kudos to the inventor. Sort of like anyone saying "I can rub my stomach, pat my head, stand on one leg, poke out my tongue, blink my eyes and fart simultaneously". Anything imagined if feasible or even with potential can possibly be done but if it has no purpose then why?

JUST ENJOY MUSIC. I am pretty well educated in music and after many years in it, everything I am reading here including my own comments so it is objective, has very little to do with making music. A tune, melody, piece, work, composition or song, whatever label anyone wishes to attach to it is either good or it is not.
The mechanics, techniques, theory and logistics are only useful for teaching and imparting knowledge so the music being the output and the important part, keeps getting better. If that fails then like the machine below, you have to ask what its use is.

If someone asked me about the fastest way to improve their skills might be, I might tell them what I know to be true from doing it myself which is much the same for any of us that have had a modicum of success in our journeys. Transcribe, i.e. work out a new song every day by ear.
Theory is of its greatest value when it can be put into practice otherwise it is only theory.

Try and be nice to each other people. There is more than enough shite happening everywhere in the news in case nobody noticed with Australia, Iran and Latin countries going through disasters. Ciao.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2020

Would someone please explain the difference between belief and philosophy?

Philosophy has been made to rectify the wrong beliefs and make them get closer to the reality. But it looks like, it can never be 100% successful because belief system has been deeply ingrained into our brains.

Is belief a bad thing or good thing? Why do we need to approach reality? Can we compel the reality to change itself and it would the one which accords with our belief systems?

Is reality more stronger or our belief systems?

What will happen if the reality and beliefs don't match with each other?
.
.
.
.

 

BELIEF:
I can believe that the sun may not rise tomorrow but I will probably be wrong unless the trillion to one chance happens and our sun explodes.
PHILOSOPHY:
I can gather a bunch of supposed facts together, hypothesise for a little while and then put them together with evidence so my hypothesis becomes a theory based on documented evidence. Academics may attest to its validity because it is based on what many other academics have proven or shown before, but it still does not mean it is correct or right. It only appears right on paper.
REALITY:
This is what happens. Reality being ours is actually divided into what is a good reality and the opposite. For example, when all of the bankers in the world ripped off the world, every country jumped up and down and screamed theft, corruption, embezzlement and extortion. Only Iceland put their bankers in jail and the most powerful countries in the world let their bankers get away with it. That is reality.

All of the three areas you raised have good and bad sides. These days, the world needs a huge injection of the positive aspects of the three areas.