absolutely ok, if that is your preferred approach to music, go for it.

and then again, there are musicians like Joni Mitchell who do exactly that. those artists prefer that way, as it is more suitable to their approach to "making" music. Being a huge fan of Joni, my personal approach is somewhat similar: when I compose, I usually "detune" my guitar to some weird base-notes and "slide" into whatever sound that setup produces. It's a way for me to escape that "I-IV-whatever"-scheme more easily, as it confronts you with a plethora of new impressions, delivered by the instrument itself (like 2 strings ringing at the same note, but quite the difference in "sound").

Similar to these "harmonic" escapes, I may also have developped escapes for rhythm and structure. As for the latter, I do not try to avoid repetition, I just - for some reason - do not repeat. It's "carried away", by a set of voices, a bass figure ... whatever "feels" right. Rhythmically I'm a nutjob anyway as I can't stick to single measures in my compositions. Every time I write down a composition and find out that I changed from 6/4 into 11/8 back to 6/4 into 9/8 and back to 6/4 and DIDN'T NOTICE that while I was playing ... then I'm very satisfied. The music has put a solid cloak over the underlying, potential theoretical aspects ... and that is my personal fulfillment.

Of course, that's only valid for me.

 

For me it is just like cooking, where I always prepare my ingredients first, and make sure I am familiar with the recipe and technique. This ensures that when creating a dish it always happens under optimal conditions.

 

My point is that one should have a choice of method, not having the method chosing him by lack of options. If you only play guitar, it's absolutely fine to theorize and visuallize everything from the relativity of the fretboard. Vicente Amigo, who I mentioned earlier, does that and most of the flamenco guys too. It's a more personal way of theorizing things that might not be so open to verbal communication but that's a bit irrelevant when you're a composer working alone.

 

Well Zenarcist, I understand where you're at and I hope you don't make yourself to bat shit crazy bro :D I've studied all kinds of theory for many years, when I was like 23 or 24 years old I thought I created a new theory wahoo!! Lol :D it turned out to be greek tetra theory (tetrachord theory) and then got into ascending descending theory (sorta like a rubik cube theory) anyway I'm not a formal guy when it comes to making music unless I am aiming at something like a ambient structure and then it's still about playing what I feel, as long as one knows the note positions they can never get lost, that video you posted he says alot of good things in it a happy medium understanding is good

 

I have an idea that might be fun for us while helping the community at the same time.

We could "spread" some of the common theory terms by building a piece of music togheter. Maybe creating a thread and verbally exchanging musical ideas and turning that into a piece of music. This way it would be half "analytical" and half communicational.

It wouldn't have to be strictly theoretical talk but "play whatever" wouldn't be the aim either.

 

for safety reasons I repeat, that I'm anything but opposed to music theory
But I have to strongly disagree an some points there!
The notion that knowledge about theory boosts creativity is incomplete as this kind of creativity can also be seen as mimickry: you study somethig new (theory wise) than copy it by introducing it (or alterations thereof) into your music. Knowing how to slice bread with a knife would not make anybody say "how creative" when you put some butter on toast with it instead of slicing.

"Theory is like a language"
Not in my book of definitions. Music theory - as we Westeners call it - is merely the "rulebook" of a language with countless dialects. Neither does it describe the language in its entirety nor does it help you to embrace the language. Sticking to your analogy (languages): What's the most common advice when ppl wann learn a new language? Do ppl suggest "oh, you wanna learn English, better get a good grammar book first" or do they say "best way is to speak it and listen to it"?

Order of operation ..
My strongest objection goes out to this one, as it assumes music is somethig that has to follow orders of operation. If this definition was valid, all music would have been composed already as the field of applications of operators is finite. Mathematical operations are strictly definied to what and when they apply, but sticking with your analogy: there's more than 1 way to skin a cat! Newton could have computed a lot of what he needed with basic mathematical operations. Nonetheless, he left classical theory and invented Calculus (which has now become theory itself).

 

Great idea! as to your other post above: I think I get your drift. When you have to "distribute" your music (in a band, orchestra, etc.) a common denominator as "music theory" is - of course - a most valuable tool. I lean myself a bit towards the "no regulation"-faction a bit here, as I' not band or orchestra material. When the only person you have to take care of is yourself, than it doesn't matter much what rules you follow or not. But without question: for education or intenser collaboration it's always nice when the participants can agree on a common set of outlines or basics.
EDIT: ad Vicente Amigo - holy egg-a-rolly! that guy's da bomb! I'm ashamed to admit that - despite being a huge Paco-fan - didn't know him. Thanks a bunch for tossing that name!

 

Last edited: Mar 2, 2016

It's actually not too heavy on theory, the main benefit is speed, and when composing the Tonic is always on the C or the A key. It's more of a short cut than anything else, and being a non-keyboardist I am pleased to have eliminated a lot of realtime calculations. All I focus on now are the tonic and the dominant, and the position of the other keys in relation to these notes. Great things can be achieved almost on autopilot. But it should be noted this is for composition, and not performance.

 

Theory comes after the fact... which if you think of it, it's kinda obvious but still hard to convince others about this (talking about music).

You only theorize the ways of a certain genre of music after it happens. It would be retarded to think that someone wrote a book named "jazz" and later on some black dudes that had no money to buy the classical ones said "Fuck it, I'll learn this jazz thing".

Personally, I feel that theory is very useful at the ear training level and that anyone in any genre would benefit from it.

Even "genre theory" about a genre that you've already been playing for decades can make think about the same old stuff in a whole new way.


There are MANY musical rudiments that can be introduced in a cross-genre way without making it lose it's character. People who do this are usually said to "have a style/personality".

 

Last edited: Mar 3, 2016

Here's me practicing a solo he did in a pop tune:

BTW, that's about 90% of the original speed... and I believe that's not his fastest stuff. Listen to "Tangos del arco bajo", awesome song, awesome live versions. "Autorretrato" is cool too.

Sorry all, this was too practical... back on to theory!!

I say Melodic Minor half step above the root of the V7 FTW!!

 

Computer programming is getting more "no need for theory" lately. Since like music, It's becoming more generic. everyone feels like knowing a thing or two about something is enough to make a career out of it

 

Apples and oranges.

For most of the programming you don't want to get creative, you want efficiency.. and done yesterday. You would be crying if all the programming had to be done at low level (assembly).

 

Music is harder than computer programming

 

Yes people do say that, but if they got a grammar book the instant they started speaking and listening to it they would be able to form their own ideas in that language quicker than someone who didn't.

Also, Newton didn't invent calculus Archimidese did. But then again by that rational, all the popular Greek and Roman mathematicians and philosophers all studied in Kemit. Which includes Newton, Socrates, Galileo, and Alexander the great to name a few. Which means they all go their information from somewhere and didn't invent shit.

 

Last time i listened to a book, it was a pretty quiet experience

@Newton:
Wikipedia => "Generally, modern calculus is considered to have been developed in the 17th century by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz. "
I was, of course, referring to modern, integral/differential calculus. Otherwise my analogy (build something new upon something old) wouldn't have made an sense.

Have a nice one!

 

Sure. Absolutely.

However, the way I see it, there are two kinds of simplicity in art: Mediocre simplicity and sophisticated simplicity.

In mediocre simplicity, an artist creates something simple because he doesn't know any better.

In sophisticated simplicity, an artist creates something simple, yet sophisticated, because he knows exactly what he's doing.

Picasso fits the second kind. In order to deconstruct himself like he did, he had to learn to master the theoretic and technical foundations of his craft.

He most likely knew there are no shortcuts.

 

Laborious discussions and at the end every one just tries to prove his or her own thoughts.

Conscientiously which threads like this help to reinforce our sagacity?

Having purposeful debates about the matter itself would not be better?

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2016

Music doesn't have to operate on a set order, but it does have to translate to some form of language, recognizable to the human ear. And that pretty much is all theory is.

 

Which is correct?

C-E-F-G

C-Em-F-G

C-E7-F-G

 

Please give me quarter. Better to have a friendly talk instead of daring each other.