We had a good discussion about Music Theory earlier.
Let's continue it.
Stirring the pot: Learning music theory can be fun and interesting, but it's ultimately just descriptive and doesn't really grant THAT much additional insight.
A poster in the old thread hit it on the head when he said, "Music theory just gives us an additional language to use when describing music."
So in addition to describing something as "anxious, haunting, unsettling," you can now add "atonal, dissonant, melodically disjointed," etc.
upvoted.
thanks for giving so much to the community
>>60613851
Is progressive rock a strong topic in music theory?
>>60613851
I highly disagree.
>>60615803
I'd say it's more that music theory is a strong topic in progressive rock.
Of course considering I had to go by Wikipedia's entry on the subject, it's quite possible I'm entirely unqualified to talk about the subject.
>>60615903
I'm likely not qualified either but stuff like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z4Aw_ECa44
have a spontaneous yet refined sound to them, much more so than other music of the time
>>60613851
Set theory just gives us an additional language to use when describing mathematical sets.
>>60616571
Not really a good analogy given that a lot of music theory is qualitative. I know some of it is related to physics and math, but a lot of it is arbitrary.
>>60613851
I don't think I could have enjoyed this nearly as much as I have without knowing music theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juNxRYBWB9g
>>60616981
And math isn't arbitrary? Would we really have math if it weren't for humans?
>>60613851
>doesn't really grant THAT much additional insight.
Strongly disagree. Have you learned theory OP? If you had even begun to learn it, You'd know that it gives pretty much infinite insight. Enough to keep you busy for the rest of your life.
Sure, if gives you more words to describe music, but it also opens your mind to new types of music, new ways of writing.
Knowledge is important. No one would dispute this. If you want to create music, knowledge of music is even more important. Musical knowledge is much more than just harmony and counterpoint. It covers orchestration (the study of instruments - their limitations, the ways they can be combined, their timbres, how to write idomatically for them), Ethnomusicology (the study of traditional music), Form (the study of what rock bands call "Structure" - verse chorus verse etc. Except in classical music this idea of structure is taken to the extremes both micro and macro).
These are only 3 facets of an almost infinite subject. Who wouldn't want to learn about something they find interesting, especially if they want to create something in that field, knowledge is a must.
You wouldn't hire a high school kid to do brain surgery, the same way you wouldn't commission a guitarist with no formal training to write a symphony.
>>60618423
good analogy.
Someone who only knows basic maths is asked to multiply 6 X 7.
They may six piles of seven rocks, then count up the lot to get the answer.
Someone who knew their multiplication tables would just say the answer straight away.
Similar to writing music. An untrained person will spend a lot of time trying to make something, and may not even get a good result (imagine if the person counting rocks miscounted...)
Whereas a trained person just gets on with it, and writes 3 or 4 excellent pieces all of high quality and with replay value that they are proud of in the time it takes the untrained person to write 1.
>>60618423
This is a rabbithole that goes nowhere and it mostly just makes you look like an annoying douche
>>60618529
Also this guy gets it
>>60615970
Yes uses basic chords. Not even that jazzy. just basic major minor and 7th chords.
People were writing more complex music 300 years ago, its just that it didn't have distorted guitars, or drumkits so kids these days dont seem to care.
>>60618675
>kids these days
Oof. I agree that prog is generally shitty but you're coming off pretty pretentious. Also a lot of people would argue that instrumentation, style, and effects can be as important as structure and complexity.
>>60618423
>And math isn't arbitrary?
Ehhh no not really. And it's much, much less arbitrary than music theory if you're really going to call it arbitrary. It's derived from some kind of assumption. This wikipedia article had some neat explanation if you're interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics
>Would we really have math if it weren't for humans?
I guarantee that if there's life on another world capable of doing the things that humans are capable of, they've discovered math. It's a necessary for technological development. Maybe they count in base 7, maybe they communicate numbers via smell, but I guarantee that there would be some form of math that could be translated into the symbols we use.
I don't really want to discuss this more, I'm a physics major and proof-type stuff isn't really in my wheelhouse. I'm sure you can find some decent resources besides the wikipedia article if you're curious though.
>>60618645
I agree that skilled people generally are better/faster at doing their jobs, be it painting houses or writing music. That being said, a person who has written thousands of pieces of music might start to stagnate and write the same well crafted, but ultimately unimaginative music over and over, whereas a less skilled writer might experiment and take risks that the skilled writer considers unorthodox.
>>60618529
>Strongly disagree. Have you learned theory OP? If you had even begun to learn it, You'd know that it gives pretty much infinite insight. Enough to keep you busy for the rest of your life.
I have some knowledge of music theory, but my feelings about theory as applied to the arts stem from a film theory background.
While they're different mediums, I believe they lead to the same mentality when evaluating a work. You start breaking up everything into its component parts, peeling back the aesthetic so to speak, to see how the structure operates, and before long, all you start caring about is the "structure" and then you start valuing all work on its structural rather than aesthetic merits. "You like that film? His shot-to-shot relationships and framing were predictable and bland. I don't think I saw one tracking or dolly shot in the entire thing. It's like he was afraid to move the camera. If I wanted to watch standard, by the numbers blocking, I'd go watch a romantic comedy."
Notice there was no mention of acting, dialogue or story/plot in that criticism. Peter Bogdanovich once told Welles that he didn't pay attention to Touch of Evil's story the first few times he watched it because all he could focus on was the direction. I use to watch films in the same way, and after you stop patting yourself on the back for how smart and insightful you feel, you realize that it is an overall poor way to experience something. I'm not saying never analyze the structure, just don't prioritize it, since structure is ultimately in service of the aesthetic whole.
I also understand that musicians/composers need to pay additional attention to the structure of music. No problem with that, obviously, but they need to understand that no matter how clever and ornate their composition might be, it won't be engaging unless the aesthetic is strong (which is subjective, of course).
(cont'd)
>>60615970
this is pop prog
post stuff like avant prog and rio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rq2PYJuCo0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugE0AnIHT8
>>60619258
I don't care how many microtones, odd time signatures, disjunct melodies, and such you shove into your 200 Nails on Chalkboard piece. End of the day, the sound is nails on chalkboard, something I find annoying and even aesthetically mundane (I do realize that there would be people interested in that, though).
>You wouldn't hire a high school kid to do brain surgery, the same way you wouldn't commission a guitarist with no formal training to write a symphony.
This is a false analogy since we know, objectively, what successful brain surgery is (the patient lives, is cured, etc). There's no such objective standards for art/music, so a guitarist's symphony is no more or less valuable than a trained composers.
If you're into music history, you probably know of the Downtown Composers? Their whole philosophy was to basically undermine that "formal mentality." Cage even taught some years before that pretty anything is "music." I don't necessarily like his work, but his idea here was correct.
The whole fetishism of structure is pretty much an academic trend, which is just as arbitrary as a pop fan's taste. Something to teach. As I said in the prior thread, African tribesmen didn't need a classroom to learn about polyrhythms and microtones.
And I still believe learning about "theory" doesn't provide that much additional insight in regards to appreciating something.
You don't need to know about deep focus photography, the type of film and camera used, Welles's symbolic intentions, etc, etc to like this shot.
And if you don't like the shot, knowing that information isn't going to make you like it.
>>60619447
>this shot.
>>60615803
Nothing they've done is really new or interesting from an art music or theory standpoint (not that they need to be worthwhile, just answering the question)
>>60616981
What of music theory is purely qualitative?
>>60619118
And music theory describes "instrumentation and effects", its called "Orchestration"
>>60619118
Most actual new or developmental stuff in music other than slightly extending the timbral range of electronic instruments at times are created by people with a strong basis in theory.
A firm understanding of past works and traditions does NOT limit creativity
>>60619258
Music theory is much more representative of music than film theory of film or visual theory of art etc etc
Aesthetic is a direct result of musical elements which can all be understood and studied objectively by someone who knows/studies theory
Basically, learn theory you lazy hippies
>>60619118
>a person who has written thousands of pieces of music might start to stagnate and write the same well crafted, but ultimately unimaginative music over and over,
this is to do with the person, not the knowledge.
I say this every thread, but:
Knowledge and creativity are separate.
Knowledge allows your creativity more options.
>>60619447
Natural talent can easily overshadow learned processes. Its when natural talent and knowledge are combined that we get excellent music.
All art is decided to be good through consensus:
If a large amount of people you consider having good taste consider something good, you can probably assume that the given artwork is of a good quality.
When lots of trained composers say "Lachenmann is great!" you can probably say that Lachenmann creates high quality music.
Obviously taste is subjective, so you can only really say things like "People who enjoy X type of music think Y piece is of a very high quality" Thats as good a judgement of quality as we can get, but its a very accurate one, unless a composer or artist is particularly polarizing. Schnittke for example. is he good? is he a hack? is he a genius? Opinions are split.
>You don't need to know about deep focus photography, the type of film and camera used, Welles's symbolic intentions, etc, etc to like this shot.
Of course you dont need knowledge to appreciate excellent film making, but you do need knowledge to make excellent films.
Part of the reason the great directors are so great, they understand the theory of film making: cinematography, composition of shots, lighting, lens construction and usage, how to get a great performance from your actors/etc.
>>60619447
>African tribesmen didn't need a classroom to learn about polyrhythms and microtones.
They dont, but we as westerners do. The same way they need to learn classical harmony (or indian raga, or turkish maqams) if they want to expand their musical ideas and branch out.
>>60619729
>Aesthetic is a direct result of musical elements which can all be understood and studied objectively by someone who knows/studies theory
I don't need to understand the particulars of atonality to feel/hear the tension/anxiety it creates.
You don't need to study anything to comprehend aesthetics.
Theory is just descriptive language added post-hoc to sounds, structures, timbres, textures, rhythms, etc, etc that occur naturally.
>>60619118
>a person who has written thousands of pieces of music might start to stagnate and write the same well crafted, but ultimately unimaginative music over and over, whereas a less skilled writer might experiment and take risks that the skilled writer considers unorthodox.
It's a lot more likely that the composer without experience in music theory will write what a more knowledgeable composer would simply consider old news, been done a million times, etc. You have to know what is orthodox in the first place in order to be unorthodox. Those who fail to learn from music history are doomed to repeat it.
>>60619960
Theory is just descriptive language added post-hoc to sounds, structures, timbres, textures, rhythms, etc, etc that occur naturally.
Not really, its much more than just description of things that occur naturally.
Where does sonata form occur naturally?
Where do fugues occur naturally?
They dont. Much of music is learned from those before us.
You may have internalized atonality through listening to horror soundtracks, but you can't really write a proper serial piece, or a piece using a tone row. You could write "Pseudo atonal" music, but thats about it. You'd be ignoring the very things that make atonal music interesting: unnatural relationships. Things you could never have come up with on your own or through intuition. Tone rows and dynamics generated by serialism.
You dont need to know about these ideas to appreciate music, but you do need to know about these ideas to create music. If not, you're just faking it and you can only fool those with less knowledge than yourself.
>>60620040
Precisely. Music theory is simply a condensed version of what those before us have learned.
>>60619960
Sure, you don't NEED to understand atonality to hear its effects, but understanding atonality will allow you to better use it in your compositions, better understand how to build to it and follow from it.
For the most part I'd agree that you don't need to study anything to comprehend aesthetics, but that study can reinforce your understanding, make you notice patterns that you would've missed otherwise, etc.
Also, nothing about music is naturally occurring. We're standing on millennia of cumulative figuring shit out here. A little background in what is already known to work and not work is always nice.
Anyway, I don't understand people who are adamantly anti-theory. The information is free, you could start learning it right now if you wanted to.
>>60620105
Laziness, it seems.
>>60619960
We're not talking about feeling/hearing, were talking about creating and actually understanding, this distinction was raised earlier in the thread actually.
If you want to create a certain aesthetic, why wouldn't studying other works (that achieved a similar aesthetic) in a systematic way assist you in that?
I also highly doubt you could convincingly describe what atonal music actually is without googling it (or perhaps even with, this is just an ad hominem side point however)
>>60620105
>The information is free, you could start learning it right now if you wanted to.
99% of information related to post-tonal theory and even tonal theory on the internet is wrong or presented in an entirely misleading manner.
Also, not really the discussion, but anyone is welcome to give me one real reason not to learn theory other than "It would take effort and time".
>>60620211
True, then again you need the musical knowledge from before it to understand it anyhow, and unless your dirt poor just order a fucking book off amazon
>>60620211
Can you post an example? I'm curious
>>60620229
http://tobyrush.com/theorypages/
This is on the /mu/ sticky
https://www.musictheory.net/
>>60620229
>parallel fifths are illegal
>voice-crossing is illegal
>no one explains applied chords properly
>discussions on sonata form are trainwrecks
>no one knows how free atonal music is constructed?
>have to strictly follow the row order in twelve-tone music
>no mention of aggregates, of set classes, of interval class vectors, etc.
basically everything is boiled down to ridiculously elemental concepts that actual contribute to a negative understanding.
This opening topic has stimulated the thread quite a bit, but I actually have a question.
In sonata form, between the first and second themes in the exposition, the usual modulations are from I to V in a major key, and from i to III, or i to v, in a minor key. In (for example) the first movement of Dvorak's American string quartet, though, the modulation is from I to III. What other more out-there modulations have composers done (that're relatively common - I don't doubt a modulation from, say, I to N has been done before).
>>60620267
Man, I'm not wading through all that shit
anybody got recs for reads on theory? maybe also read on historic perspective? it's place in relation to everything else?
>>60620421
going to college or university is the best way to get an all round understanding. well worth it if you're serious about making or understanding music.
>>60620166
>this distinction
That distinction is utterly irrelevant to people who have no interest in creating music.
>adamantly anti-theory.
Because it operates from the presumption that there is some kind of objective, quantifiable value to certain compositional methods and techniques.
The history of not just music, but all art, typically innovates when artists rebel against the academic theoretical standards that were in trend.
They thought Reich and that whole minimalist crew were complete dogshit.
If you use theory simply to gain an understanding of how music is made (which, believe it or not, doesn't interest everyone), fair enough, but too many use what "professor told them" as some kind of benchmark that music needs to live up to in order to be considered good.
Who's that composer who said (in the 60's) that no serious composer uses the tonal system anymore and then declared "victory" for the 12 tone system?
And then a few years later serious composers were back exploring tonality.
I find the whole mentality (when used out of snobbery) to be restrictive.
>>60620421
Do you have a solid knowledge of your rudiments?
For example, can you tell me what notes are in the F# minor scale and the key signature? can you tell me what composite time is, can you tell me the difference between a minor third and augmented second, can you tell me how a diminished triad is constructed?
>>60620442
Dude... Reich is really really terrible... don't tell me you actually enjoy any of it
>>60615903
>>60619729
>Nothing they've done is really new or interesting from an art music or theory standpoint
This. For a genre called progressive, there are few bands that actually made any compositions with forward-thinking theory.
Most prog theory is just basic jazz-extension theory, mathematical rhythm theory, etc. and even that's pushing it.
>>60620105
>A little background in what is already known to work and not work is always nice.
That doesn't make any sense.
Art isn't a "science," it produces nothing that "works" since it isn't bound by any kind physical law.
Sure, you can say what we like in art is married to our human nature, but that idea is constantly challenged in art, and new tastes are, quite literally, created.
And in addition to that, the human imagination is practically infinite, and we often find ourselves liking things that seem nonsensical/bizarre. Someone out there probably made a composition out of his own farts, and he genuinely likes it, and there's people out there who would genuinely like it (not for comedic purposes, but would be "moved"). That isn't supposed to "work," but for some, it does.
Or a 2khz sine wave played for 5 minutes straight isn't supposed to work. But there are people out there who like it.
>>60620456
assume i know nothing
>>60620442
>Because it operates from the presumption that there is some kind of objective, quantifiable value to certain compositional methods and techniques.
These techniques have objective, quantifiable values. Writing with strict counterpoint makes your music sound very clear and "perfect"
Writing using the serial method will give you atonal, dissonant music.
Writing by feel will give you whatever you feel at that specific moment.
Its how you combine these techniques that makes your voice unique.
Boulez was the composer you were thinking about:
"
[Composers of 12-tone music] give themselves over, as a group or individually, to frenetic arithmetic masturbation. For in their necessitous speculation they have forgotten to go beyond the elementary stage of arithmetic. Do not ask them for anything more: they know how to count up to 12 and in multiples of 12.”
(in the same article): “What can we conclude? The unexpected: I, in turn, assert that any musician who has not experienced - I do not say understood, but, in all exactness, experienced – the necessity for the dodecaphonic [12-tone] language is USELESS. For his whole work is irrelevant to the needs of his epoch."
He interestingly argues for and against 12-tone/serialism in the same interview.
>>60620536
>Reich is really really terrible
Why?
>>60620561
>He interestingly argues for and against 12-tone/serialism in the same interview.
It's not an interview and no he certainly does not.
>>60620536
Not him but "Proverb" is passable.
Reich was a phase that had to be done, so guys like John Adams could exist.
Hardline minimalism just isn't that interesting. As humans we need interest. something new happening 30 seconds. Not something *slightly different slowly happening over 30 minutes. It had to be done by someone, but the results were underwhelming.
>>60620556
Well thats a good place to start
http://www.amazon.ca/Complete-Elementary-Music-Rudiments-Sarnecki/dp/B00FBLQLMY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448524597&sr=8-1&keywords=rudiments
Id recommend reading and filling out that whole book (gloss over vocal scores and the blues scale if you don't care)
If you have any questions go to /classical/ and annoy them about it
After that if you interested in composition or just more theory for the sake of learning you need to somehow learn harmony, four part writing, form, 16th and 18th century counterpoint, orchestration, post tonal theory, the list goes on and theres books on all these I'm just giving a bit of a succinct list
>>60620565
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_KIcgiFCeY
Tell me you get off on this. I dare you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzkOFJMI5i8
Tell me how you love the parts where you hear two claps on one beat and the parts where you hear no claps on the beat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjnVN6-Wx08
Tell me you love listening to boring, bland harmonies with no soul repeated over and over again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E4Bjt_zVJc
Tell me there isn't enough train whistle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0WVh1D0N50
Tell me how it's a meditative experience to hear all possible phases of a short little tape loop.
>>60620540
So you listen to the structure not the whole, and base your judgment on how "innovative" a composition is?
And that is the problem with strict theorists. They only listen to the math.
So you would accept any instrument/sound choice, as long as the theory is "forward thinking?"
>>60620554
>Art isn't a "science
wrong.
All the great masters of art learned the science behind it before they even touched a paintbrush.
They learned how to mix and create paints, how to use oils, how to thin, etc. They learned about correct canvas construction (otherwise the Mona Lisa would have disintegrated 100+ years ago) and the science of composition. Things like study of human anatomy for more realism, study of the golden ratio, and the study of color balance and light/darkness / contrast helped the great masters of painting and sculpture become so great.
No one remembers the mediocre painters from the renaissance times, the same way no one will remember the mediocre popular music of today in 300 years (unless recordings of it still exist, in which case it will be studied mostly by scholars in ancient music, and musicologists, as a small side note to 20th century art music)
>>60620624
https://www.musictheory.net/lessons
oh and this is good too and online and free but you really learn properly doing the exercises in that book its worth it if you wanna really know it.
>>60620641
we aren't saying we aren't accepting it were saying it isn't that "new" from a theory standpoint
I enjoy prog rock, i have lizards about 5 feet from me, he asked a question and I gave an answer
just fucking read the posts before you reply man
If strict theorists only accepted new theory they wouldn't be strict, thats a contradiction
>>60620442
>it operates from the presumption that there is some kind of objective, quantifiable value to certain compositional methods and techniques
That is your assumption about theory, not an something that is built into it.
>The history of music typically innovates when artists rebel
>Reich et al
Reich had a solid grounding in music theory, dude went to Juilliard ffs. Is rebellion worth anything when you don't have any idea what you're rebelling against? Can you even rebel, in that case?
>too many use what "professor told them" as some kind of benchmark that music needs to live up to in order to be considered good
I have literally never met anyone like this and I doubt you have either. Internet people don't count.
Seems like your whole argument is predicated on this loosely defined "restrictive" "academic" "snobbery" that you perceive, rather than anything to do with music theory itself. Theory is a useful tool, and nothing more. People who actually write music (e.g. not the shitposters over in /classical/) know this. They're not hard and fast rules for fuck's sake.
>>60620456
Which F# minor scale?
>>60620682
>Which F# minor scale?
I meant natural, slightly implied as I asked for the key signature too
but ya fuck you bud I already passed that exam
>>60620554
Are you being this dense on purpose? Like fuck man.
>>60620641
Yeah nah dude prog encompasses like pretty much all of my favorite bands, it's just that when >>60615803
mentioned it, I felt it important to let him know that, no, prog rock is not a strong music theory topic. It's about average, with a few exceptions.
New Music is probably the most progressive in music theory, but that's not even fun to listen to most of the time.
>>60620752
>New Music
>expecting any of the peasants on /mu/ to know what you mean by this
>>60620634
I only referencing Reich as an example of "respected composers" who weren't respected by the academics of the day.
Music, for me, is all about the final aesthetic. Don't care about composition. I care about mood, atmosphere, emotion,.texture, instrument choice, etc. All the neat little semitones, polyrhythms, "challenging" time signatures, etc, etc, don't interest me if I don't like the aesthetic.
Reich's clapping music doesn't interest me. I don't care if Bach composed an orchestra of clappers. End of the day, it's people clapping.
You're right, the repetition of Different Trains becomes grating. I'd personally like some sharp, strong percussion worked into there. I do like the atmosphere of the song, just gets too repetitive. It never "pays off," which I know is Reich's intent.
Come Out is pretty innovative, but not necessarily "good." You can hear the beginnings of hip-hop there (even though Reich had no idea he was making something that be a precursor).
I like this version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAyJwJZU2es
>>60620766
A-am I so far gone?
Have I lost touch with the average plebeian?
>>60620835
no he's retarded
>>60620732
>re you being this dense on purpose? Like fuck man.
How am I being dense?
How can art "work" when there's no objective to ground yourself to (like science, for example. What works and doesn't is determined by physical law)?
If art "worked," in that sense, then everyone would automatically like what everyone else liked.
The reason I'm fervent here is because I can think of nothing worse in this case than an "objective standard" in art. If that were true, than all artists would be bound to that absolute.
As an artist, why would anyone want a restriction like that?
I think that's the problem some have with people who fundamentally endorse theory. It's presuming an absolute.
I'm saying you do this, but many do. "Art/classical music made in academia is the only kind of worthy music! And if you don't proclaim such, it means you're a pleb who doesn't know theory!"
>>60620904
>I'm saying you do this
*I'm not saying you do this
>>60620904
see
>>60619857
>All art is decided to be good through consensus
Also art music is of a higher quality than popular music due to the knowledge of those who write it. Almost all musicians start off self taught, its those who take their enthusiasm and talent to the next level through formal training that make the most interesting and highest quality music.
I want to say Classical is objectively superior to popular music, but everyone has their own taste so thats not the case. Classical is of a higher quality than popular music. Whether you like it or not is down to your personal taste.
If you argue that popular music is even on the same level as classical, you probably just dont know how classical works, and that popular music is essentially a dumbed down version of art music, made to be easy to digest, package and sell.
By popular music I pretty much mean everything that isn't written by a trained composer, than isn't traditional music. So thats all bands, producers, singer songwriters, etc. Everything that releases nicely packaged albums for profit.
>>60619258
If you allow your ability to derive enjoyment from something to be affected just because you start becoming aware of the technical aspects that go into creating it, then the problem lies entirely with you and goes to show that you probably don't understand it as well as you think you do.
In my opinion, people who value music theory are really predisposed to western classical music and undervalue the knowledge of how to make music in another genre as just as valid theory as the western classical tradition
Also, I think that people who operate in the classical/art music space are a little blind to the difference between art and craft. Much of theory is descriptive and all about making music in some style or analyzing how some music was made - basically a musicians or composers or arrangers craft - and the actual art part is "the rest".
To be a professional, you need to know the craft, but knowing the craft doesn't make you a great artist by any means. Great art can also be made by people with shallow theory knowledge - theoretical knowledge can then be used to make better sense of that artwork and understand and describe how to replicate the style.
>>60621754
yeah you only really need to know theory if you want to be a classical composer, conductor or musicologist.
The only reason you'd want to learn theory as a popular musician is to make REALLY fucking good music, as opposed to music that sounds good to you and plebs like.
Also I'd like to repeat that most composers of art music start out self taught, and usually explore all genres, before, during and after studying music theory. They're people with open minds who want to learn. They want to learn about asian music, they want to learn about traditional music, about the origins of hip hop, about 60s soul, about 20s blues, about 2000s death metal. They usually value music so much that they'll listen to anything just to see how it works and internalize any ideas they like.
I'm glad some people finally set the OP straight but he should have at least set out his basic assumptions about aesthetics (the subjective vs objective generalisation) at the outset, instead of the rest of the thread being a clusterfuck of his lack of reading being tugged back and forth.
How can you even debate this when you don't clarify your terms? Why not state them immediately so those who fundamentally disagree don't waste their time? Why talk about aesthetics without knowing the various basic schools of it and deploying that (oh, his psychological necessity for his position on music/film is revealed!)?
>In my opinion, people who value music theory are really predisposed to western classical music
Say this to someone who trained in any other tradition (even jazz, lel) and they will laugh.
>>60620904
music is kinda grounded into physics. look up frequency ratios and shit, maybe you'll get it
Music Theory is a great tool, but it's not essential. The key to making great music is being knowledgeable and experienced in any (or many) musical related aspects (and some non-musical as well).
>>60622330
>being knowledgeable
that includes knowing music theory.
Someone who doesn't know music theory wouldn't be "knowledgeable" in my opinion. Not with regard to music at least.
>>60622372
Yes, that was implied.
It IS possible to be knowledgeable without knowing music theory though.
>>60622414
not really. Music theory only the very basics of music.
Knowing the basics should be prerequisite of being called "knowledgeable"
Once you know the basics, you would be knowledgeable compared to a pleb.
Once you know advanced theory, you would be knowledgeable compared to someone who only knows the basics.
You wouldn't say an artist who doesn't know how to paint or draw, or anything about art history is "Knowledgeable"
I see it as simply just practical, but optional. People saying that it is mandatory to make good/better music are mistaken. Greatly.
>>60621928
> Say this to someone who trained in any other tradition (even jazz, lel) and they will laugh.
I meant this more in the sense that most people who talk about "music theory" usually refer to the Western classical tradition even though if you want to play or compose jazz you very much need to understand jazz theory and conventions and if you want to make dubstep you need to understand dubstep theory and conventions.
Being a professional musician working in any genre or across genres requires you to understand the relevant conventions and forms of course.
There's nothing inherently worse about theory relating to other genres, but people who talk about how important knowing "music theory" are often the kind who use it to refer to the classical theory and the nalso use it as a point to prove the superiority of classical music because it follows classical theory.
It's no less music theory to know what "trading eights" or "dropping the bass" refers to than any classical concept, I think, but most people don't find these to be equally important bits of "music theory".
>>60618675
prog is more complex when it comes to rhytm than melody, you will often hear songs where the drums are playing 4/4 bass playing 3/4 and guitar 5/4 such as king crimson's discipline, i agree that orchestral music is more complex, however prog uses styles from, rock jazz and pop and classical music such as sonatas, you wont find a more complex genre in modern times that gained as much popularity than prog rock
>>60620369
bumping this question.
>>60617910
Music is a lot like film. The theory can give you some guidelines on what's been done and how it was used. But in order to make some real art you have to create some new or at least inspired context.
>>60626439
No one's disagreeing. But to know what's new you have to know what's old - you have to know music theory.
wow, this is the most not-stupid thread i've read in all my short /mu time
>>60627160
It's amazing how much disagreement and yet how little angry shitposting there is here.
So is this thread solely dedicated to the discussion of whether or not learning music theory is necessary? Or can I ask music theory questions here?
I'd like to see more discussion on what people think this useful music theory is, anyway.
Like, for example, what music theory should someone hoping to be a hip hop producer be studying primarily?
kek you fags call this a discussion? theres been better music related discussions in death grips threads
>>60623511
New Complexity exists. Its probably about as popular as prog rock, just mostly among composers and people in the art music scene.
Any form of rock pales in comparison to art music.
>>60627881
You dont need any theory to make hip hop. Most of what you need is production skills.
>>60627754
Please ask music theory questions im a neck beard from classical as are 50% of the people here probably
>>60627881
>>60628312
You don't NEED music theory to make any music, nobody made that argument
But lots of a hip hop producers are fairly well versed in jazz theory (Madlib for example), music theory can help string together and fill in samples in a logical way further than just "what sounds good"
But yes, production skills are extremely important, but learning basic music theory/jazz harmony would be equally important in my opinion (I've done an anecdotal amount of hip hop production).
>>60628862
>>60628910
you didn't even use an image of actual roman plebs
noice
>>60628834
but my point is that how on earth is not knowledge regarding hip hop production, techniques, forms, practices and conventions music theory too?
it really rustles my jimmies that the term "music theory" is usually highjacked by neckbeards with a classical music background who fail to see that theory and knowledge exists outside their ivory tower
>>60627881
Some of the more rhythmic elements of music theory are really taken to extremes in hip hop.
>>60628752
Well, then >>60620369
>>60628947
When people say "music theory," they pretty much always mean "the study Western art music composition." That's just the way things be, and have been for hundreds of years.
Production is production, it's a separate skillset from composing
>>60613851
>it's ultimately just descriptive and doesn't really grant THAT much additional insight
No.
>>60628947
>>60629059
How is composition that different from production
They're both just writing music
You realize thats all composing means?
>>60628977
Example? This isn't a jab I just want cool rhythmic things to hear.
>>60623480
>dubstep theory
Please say this is bait.
>>60628989
Most of the common ones other than the ones you mentioned (I-V, i-III, i-v) were made popular by the bee man.
I-III which you mentioned is extremely common.
He did alot of mediant/submediant modulations and would switch their modes alot as well.
For example he'd do things like:
I-III (waldstein 1st) (usually would have been be i-III)
I-VI (hammerklavier 1st) (youd expect vi)
these he did a few times too but I cant think of examples and am lazy (they're all fairly logical though)
I-bVI
i-iii
Like you said though its all been done.
Im sure other here know more than me though.
Basically start out experimenting with Mediants instead of relatives minors/majors and Dominants
>>60613851
If theory doesn't help you substantially, you probably don't play an instrument. Voice is not an instrument
>>60629647
Elaborating on my own post now that i opened my book of beethoven sonatas:
I was pretty much just looking at first movements i have to go to work in a minute
I didnt list any modal switches (I-v or i-iii, usually the i-iii the iii becomes III by the end of the exposition)
4--2nd: Cm - Ab (i-VI)
11-1st: Bb - F (I-IV)
14-1st: Does some wierd stuff, Kinda of C#m-F#m (i-iv) though. This is oversimplified
16-1st: G - B (as well as Bm), (I-III)
21-1st: C - E (I-III)
(dudududu dudududu dudududu dududada dodudu doodaloo du du du (higher register) dooo dodaloo!) (transpose and repeat for waldstein)
anyhow
and the rest i didnt get time to look at but anyway ya, happy composing (or whatever you do)
