>When someone with no education on music theory gives their "opinion"
>music theory
>not useless
every opinion in this thread is shit
>>60800826
you're a nice guy
:^)
music theory is just that - a theory
there is no proof for music
>>60800889
this
>>60800722
How do people who know music theory give their opinion? I've seen no one here ever use music theory to critique music, so I don't know how you're supposed to apply music theory when giving an opinion. Does it just automatically make your opinion more worthy even if it's still a vague comment like, "It's shit 4/10"?
>>60800722
>implying any music /mu/ listens to requires any music theory knowledge.
>>60800956
but not you, right
you're the exception and the special snowflake
>>60800889
I don't even believe in music desu
>>60800889
>>60800907
>There is no proof for simple mathematical intervals
Friendly reminder that western classical music theory is only one of the many possible ways of analyzing music. Therefore, it's not essential to learn that specific theory, as long as you are aware of other tools for analyzing music.
>>60800969
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>60801003
yeah?
where is it
show me where it is
you can't see it
might as well tell me to believe in god with your faith in scientific theory
>>60801008
What other methods of analyzing music are there?
>>60800933
This is a b8 thread bro
Mentioning music theory is a guaranteed way to piss /mu/ off
>>60800722
A lot of successful musicians barely have any knowledge of music theory.
>>60801060
>a successful musician = a good musician
spot the pleb
>>60801022
Read this book.
>>60801076
actually do though its a great book
>>60801019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory
>>60801060
Such as?
>>60801071
Prove otherwise
>>60801076
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=fed7c91fde6cf56c7f9da54dddb9d20a
>>60800722
I've been learning music theory since i was 3 years old, I've studied every patrician genre and listened to every patrician musician and i've come to the conclusion that Taylor Swift is the only good musician ever.
>>60801019
>you can't see it
you can hear it though
>>60800722
Nobody reads a music review wanting to know what polymeters are used or how complex the chord progressions are on an album. They just wank to know what instruments are used, what the lyrics talk about, how fast or hard are the riffs, how intense are the grooves, how cool are the beats, etc. Sorry, but your "knowledge on music theory" is useless on this field.
>>60801194
>Sorry, but your "knowledge on music theory" is useless on this field.
You mean the useless field of This Song Gives Me Feels?
>>60801194
>most people are plebs who don't know shit about music
FTFY
>>60801167
but you can't hold it
>>60801226
you can't hold gamma rays either
There's honestly no way to lose when you learn music theory.
Doesn't diminish the enjoyment you may have for your current music, and helps you perhaps appreciate music you don't like.
You don't have to swear by it, but it's helpful to know
>>60801221
>>60801222
>I'm buttmad because someone told me the hours I spent studying a bunch of rules are nothing to brag about on a Burmese astrophysics imageboard
FTFY
>>60801290
That's true, but I'm still more musically intelligent than you, and that feels fine.
>>60801060
Pop musicians, you mean.
>>60801276
>Doesn't diminish the enjoyment you may have for your current music
It did for me. When I first learned about song structure, music became a lot more boring because I always expected when the chorus or verse would come up. And when I learned about keys, and how he melody always has to go back to the "home note," it because boring listening to music because I always knew that was what's going to happen. It just takes the magic right out of music when I know how everything works.
>>60801343
The problem isn't Music Theory, it's you listening to shit music
>>60801311
I'm a professional musician you imbecile, I'm just saying that the time you spent studying a set of arbitrary rules are nothing to brag about on this board.
>>60801343
But maybe that can help you enjoy more complex and unconventional music, then!
It's natural for tastes to evolve and change when your knowledge of a certain field increases; just go with it and see where you end up
>>60801276
you are right
>>60801364
You don't write shit.
>>60801364
>I'm a professional musician you imbecile
>>60801364
>I'm a professional musician you imbecile,
No you're not.
>>60801388
>>60801389
>>60801391
Nice argument.
>>60801441
>you can't prove I'm lying on the internet! hehe
Zzzzzzzzz
>>60801391
>complains about bragging
>I'm a professional musician
>>60801487
Did you mean to quote >>60801364
>>60801250
kek
>>60801458
If I'm a professional musician or not isn't the point. You're just resorting to silly ad hominem fallacies now.
>>60801487
I'm not bragging triptard, I'm just countering his post saying "I'm more musically intelligent to you."
>>60801507
yeah
woops
>>60801532
>starts post with "I'm a professional musician"
>expecting anybody to take you seriously ever again
>>60801532
>If I'm a professional musician or not isn't the point
But you brought it up.
>You're just resorting to silly ad hominem fallacies now.
Much like this post? >>60801364
>I'm just countering his post saying "I'm more musically intelligent to you."
Playing at your high school talent show doesn't make you a professional musician though.
>>60801555
>>60801561
>If I'm a professional musician or not isn't the point
>But you brought it up.
To counter his post saying that he was "more musically intelligent" than me. The main point of the discussion is still if one's musical knowledge is relevant to his opinion on music or not.
>Playing at your high school talent show doesn't make you a professional musician though.
Cool assumption bro, but I'm actually a session musician.
Musical theory is the dankest meme of all time.
Think about this, the most beautiful and aesthetic songs rated by the top music critics sell like shit compared to the Biebs.
What a bunch of pretentious chucklefucks.
>>60801616
music theory knowledge*
>>60801570
>>60801570
>>60801616
>To counter his post saying that he was "more musically intelligent" than me
But I am
>The main point of the discussion is still if one's musical knowledge is relevant to his opinion on music or not.
It is.
>Cool assumption bro, but I'm actually a session musician.
I play in four bands, am a session player and a sound engineer. My opinion is more valuable than yours. Deal with it.
>>60801640
>>60800889
As my teacher explained In my music theory class in Highschool, music theory explains music, it's not a strict set of correct rules.
>>60801664
>>60801656
>>To counter his post saying that he was "more musically intelligent" than me
>But I am
>>The main point of the discussion is still if one's musical knowledge is relevant to his opinion on music or not.
>It is.
Nice arguments.
>>Cool assumption bro, but I'm actually a session musician.
>I play in four bands, am a session player and a sound engineer. My opinion is more valuable than yours. Deal with it.
Nice appeal to authority. Too bad you can't prove any of that and even on the tiny possibility that it's true, it doesn't necessarily make you any more knowledgeable in music theory than me.
>>60801698
>>60801727
It's going to work. The basic fact remains that an individual knowledgeable in music theory will have a more valued opinion on music than one without. All of your misdirection won't change that
>>60801364
Nice appeal to authority. Too bad you can't prove any of that and even on the tiny possibility that it's true, it doesn't necessarily make you any more knowledgeable in music theory than me.
>>60801756
>>60801784
>It's going to work. The basic fact remains that an individual knowledgeable in music theory will have a more valued opinion on music than one without. All of your misdirection won't change that
You still haven't provided any valid (counter-)arguments supporting your position.
>>60801311
Nice appeal to authority. Too bad you can't prove any of that and even on the tiny possibility that it's true, it doesn't necessarily make you any more knowledgeable in music theory than me.
>>60801532
>I'm not bragging triptard
>>60801616
>Cool assumption bro, but I'm actually a session musician.
>>60801853
>You still haven't provided any valid (counter-)arguments supporting your position.
Neither have you.
>>60801853
Nice argument.
>>60801885
>*chortles* nice argument
ftfy
>>60801853
In fact, you yourself has admitted that your knowledge in music theory isn't anything to brag about on this board:
From >>60801290 :
>>>60801221
>>>60801222
>>I'm buttmad because someone told me the hours I spent studying a bunch of rules are nothing to brag about on a Burmese astrophysics imageboard
>FTFY
From >>60801311 :
>>>60801290
>That's true [...]
>>60801856
>Le contrarian trolle tripfag
>>60801668
>my highschool theory teacher
Yeah, he is definitely the source of all musical authority.
>>60801885
>Neither have you.
The burden of proof is on you, you started the thread on the first place.
>Nice argument
>Pointing the logical flaws in your post wasn't an argument
You're pathetic.
>>60801993
>The burden of proof is on you, you started the thread on the first place.
I'm not OP though.
>Pointing the logical flaws in your post wasn't an argument
Then I also have an argument, as we've already demonstrated the flaws in yours.
Please keep up.
>>60802038
>I'm not OP though.
Still, OP started the discussion implying people with no education on music theory have no saying in music, so the burden of proof is on him and all the people who share his position.
>Then I also have an argument, as we've already demonstrated the flaws in yours.
Where?
You don't need academic linguistic categorizations to understand music and sound on an intuitive level
>>60802106
Don't try to use words you don't understand lmao
>>60802087
>Still,
I'm not OP. You need to talk to him if you are upset about something. I'm sorry you made the mistake but juts man up.
OP started the discussion implying people with no education on music theory have no saying in music, so the burden of proof is on him and all the people who share his position.
Who would have a better opinion on heart surgery: a heart surgeon or a plumber?
>Where?
See >>60801487 and >>60801561 and >>60801856
Again, it goes back to you making a mistake and not manning up. You aren't fooling anyone here.
What the fuck is happening in this thread
>>60802143
What doesn't make sense about my statement? Our use of language does to a certain point change our perception and limit creative intiution, the thing about music is if we're not bombarded with the right definition for certain sounds, textures, techniques, we have a certain freedom in our perception to music. We can express things that can't be expressed with conventional linguistics, the same goes with poetry and twisting words with others for new more nuanced meaning
>>60800969
>but not you, right
he is a mutant and so he appply
>>60802218
Music Theory is not a set of rules you dummy.
>>60802204
A non-theory fag is pretending to be a theoryfag but got butthurt that we caught him making a double standard argument
>>60802183
>I'm not OP.
It doesn't matter. The burden of proof is on the people who share the starting position in this discussion, which is "people with no education on music theory have no saying in music."
>Who would have a better opinion on heart surgery: a heart surgeon or a plumber?
Nice false analogy, comparing entertainment with a critical procedure.
>See >>60801487 and >>60801561 and >>60801856
Cherrypicking and manipulating the content of my posts isn't argumentating, sorry. And the point of the discussion is not if I'm a professional musician or not, but if people with no education on music theory have a saying in music or not.
>>60801165
>Writing her songs with no help of musicians
I'll admit she sings pretty good.
>>60802258
No, but unnecessary categorization. I prefer to have a more free fluid approach to sound and music
This fucking thread
>>60802204
>>60802270
Actually theoryfags are buttmad because the time they spent studying a bunch of rules are nothing to brag about on a Sri Lankan oceanography imageboard.
>>60802273
if he is cherrypicking can you find more quotes that disprove this?
>>60802273
>It doesn't matter.
It does, as you are attributing something I didn't say to me, and wanting to me to prove it/. Not how a conversation works. Do you act like this in real life? I doubt a session music would be able to get work like this if they can't function in a conversation. Makes me wonder...
>The burden of proof is on the people who share the starting position in this discussion
I never stated my position. So again, you should be speaking to OP, not me. Learn2argue
>Nice false analogy
Not really.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour if you still don't understand
>>60802301
>nothing to brag about on a Sri Lankan oceanography imageboard.
Like being a session musician?
>>60802409
>Le contrarian master trolle tripfag strikes again
Why don't you try providing an argument to support the that "people with no education on music theory have no saying in music" instead of playing a silly game that isn't even relevant to the point of this discussion?
>>60802460
>"people with no education on music theory have no saying in music"
Who made that argument?
>>60802431
When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the party who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, not just a single individual. This is a basic discursive convention.
And could you explain how that link is even relevant to this discussion?
>>60802449
For how longer will you evade the point of the discussion?
>>60802525
>When two parties are in a discussion
There are like four or five people here at least. Don't you know how this works?
>And could you explain how that link is even relevant to this discussion?
Did you read it?
>For how longer will you evade the point of the discussion?
>the party who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim
The burden of proof is on you, since you made the assertion first.
Still waiting.
>>60802561
I am looking for the text "people with no education on music theory have no saying in music" and I'm not seeing it.
Care to try again?
It's like cooking without a degree in food science.
You might be able to mix up something palatable but the highest echelons of haute cuisine require intense training.
>>60802569
>There are like four or five people here at least. Don't you know how this works?
A "party" doesn't need a certain number of individuals to be considered a "party," in this context it's any collective of people who share a certain position.
>Did you read it?
I'm not losing my time reading an article that probably won't even be relevant to tis discussion.
>The burden of proof is on you, since you made the assertion first.
Haha no, OP made the assertion first. You aren't "trolling" anyone, kiddo.
>>60802460
>Why don't you try providing an argument to support the that "people with no education on music theory have no saying in music"
because i don't believe that's true desu, its just funny how >>60802273
kept contradicting himself
>>60802588
>When someone with no education on music theory gives their "opinion"
He's implying the opinion of people with no education on music theory on music is irrelevant.
>>60802619
>A "party" doesn't need a certain number of individuals to be considered a "party," in this context it's any collective of people who share a certain position.
/mu/ isn't one person, and you are making the (incorrect) assumption everyone shares a certain position. As I said, I never stated my position.
>I'm not losing my time reading an article that probably won't even be relevant to tis discussion
Sounds like your problem for being willfully ignorant.
>Haha no, OP made the assertion first. You aren't "trolling" anyone, kiddo.
OP created the thread theme/topic; .you were the one who made the initial claim. Thus the burden of proof is on you.
>>60802651
>He's implying
Not what I'm asking. Try again.
>>60802651
>OP is a shitpost
>expects decent discussion ITT
>>60802648
I have never contradicted myself, you're just manipulating the content of my posts to try to derail the discussion, like a typical contrarian trolle tripfag.
>>60802711
>the context is only what I say it is so I can always be right!
>>60802711
>promise guys i'm legit a pro musician
nah you're just a bit of a tit for trying to make yourself look good on an anonymous tibetan goalpost sharing website
*enters*
MUSIC THEORY IS PURE IDEOLOGY
*leaves*
>>60801956
As if there is a source on all musical authority, he had his master's in music theory, so I'm more inclined to listen to him than anyone on /mu/
>>60802776
and tbf he's talking sense too
>he can't hear the difference between a pythagorean comma and a septimal minor seventh
>he has an opinion on music
>>60802687
>/mu/ isn't one person, and you are making the (incorrect) assumption everyone shares a certain position. As I said, I never stated my position.
But in >>60801885 you said that I never provided any arguments supporting my position, when the burden of proof is on the opposite party. I'm just explaining basic discursive conventions.
>Sounds like your problem for being willfully ignorant.
Nah, only concious of how a serious discussion works. You can't simply provide a random source without even explaining how it's important to the discussion.
>OP created the thread theme/topic; .you were the one who made the initial claim. Thus the burden of proof is on you.
OP created the thread AND started the initial claim.
>Not what I'm asking. Try again.
He doesn't have to methodically state his position, a simple implication is enough. Don't you understand human communication? Are you autistic?
>>60800722
Dat pic, it's the school bully
>>60802766
Again, I was just countering him for saying that "I'm still more musically intelligent than you." Funny how you never pointed out how much of a "tit" he was for saying that.
When this thread is over, I'm filtering you.
>>60802277
>I'll admit she sings pretty good
>pretty good
Are you fucking kidding me? Have you heard a good singer before?
>>60803029
no because you ate his b8 right up like a good little tit
go ahead filter me, see if i care
>>60800722
OP, are you that kid who took band class too seriously?
>Music Theory involving sound it self requires listening to melody n a focused and discerning discerning sense
>Once you understand whats happening, begin interpreting emotion.
>Music theory allows you to interprrt emotion from melody and harmony at a deeper level.
Why is this so hard to understand? Where is the point of contention?
>>60803106
>IT WAS ALL A TROLL GUYS!
>>60803134
even now you're doing the exact same thing that you complained about other people doing
>>60803134
also, holy fuck your reading comprehension is awful
>>60802889
>But in >>60801885 (You) you said that I never provided any arguments supporting my position,
Correct.
>when the burden of proof is on the opposite party.
Incorrect. I already addressed this.
> without even explaining how it's important to the discussion.
You don't know what context clues are?
>OP created the thread AND started the initial claim.
A greentext isn't a claim.
>He doesn't have to methodically state his position
In an argument? Of course he does.
Why are you dodging the question? Are you unable to back up your claims? If you want a discussion, then just do it.
>>60803119
Anyone can listen to music carefully and interpret what emotion a song a song is trying to evoke without education on music theory. Knowing what polytonality is or how to detect time signatures won't make you necessarily any more proficient at that.
>>60803203
So learning how an artist communicates emotion in music is not better equipping yourself to know how an artistic communicates emotion in music?
you already know how intonation communicates emotion because you do it every time you speak
>>60803156
>>60803184
See pic and reflect on your attitudes, dude.
>>60803156
>You don't know what context clues are?
Yes, I do. And on sight, your link doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.
>A greentext isn't a claim.
It can be.
>In an argument? Of course with he does
No, he doesn't. OP started the thread with a greentext saying "when someone with no education on music theory gives their "opinion"" along with a disgusted reaction picture with the caption "working class scum." You can easily deduce what is his position from that.
>Why are you dodging the question?
What question am I dodging?
>Are you unable to back up your claims?
Again, the burden of proof is not on me.
>>60803344
Forgot pic.
>>60803344
>And on sight, your link doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.
When i specifically brought up specialization?
>It can be.
Only when you want it to be.
>You can easily deduce what is his position from that.
But he's not making the claim. YOU are based on your "deduction". You are believing what you want to believe.
>What question am I dodging?
Prove your case?
>>60803344
>>60803203
Understanding and being able to detect melodic patterns and the exact content of complex chord progressions is useless? Okay, have fun interpret nothing more yhan superficial sensory appeal from music.
Anything that involves practicing focused and discern perception of art can lead to deeper levels of interpretation
>>60801290
>thinking music theory are a set of 'rules'
>>60803388
>When i specifically brought up specialization?
You brought up a link about division of labour to try to prove your equation of music with heart surgery. Any sane person can see that this is not obviously relevant to the discussion. You are not fooling anyone.
>But he's not making the claim. YOU are based on your "deduction". You are believing what you want to believe.
Yes, he is. It's not just a deduction, any sane person can see that he doesn't think the opinion of people with no education on music theory is relevant. Again, you aren't fooling anyone.
>Prove your case?
The burden of proof is not on me.
>>60803546
This. >>60801290 doesn't have a clue
>>60803610
>Any sane person can see that this is not obviously relevant to the discussion
How so? Please explain.
>Yes, he is.
How so?
>The burden of proof is not on me.
Then stop posting.
>>60803682
>How so? Please explain.
You're the one who has to explain how it's relevant to the discussion. You have no grasp of the concept of "burden of proof," do you?
>How so?
I already explained it in the post.
>Then stop posting.
'No.'
>>60803119
>Once you understand whats happening, begin interpreting emotion
Are you autistic or something?
>>60803456
have fun interpreting nothing more than superficial linguistic categorizations from music
>>60803722
>You have no grasp of the concept of "burden of proof," do you?
You are making the claim it's not relevant and/or random. The burden of proof is on you.
>I already explained it in the post.
Not sufficiently. Try again.
>>60803546
How it isn't a set of rules? It tries to objectively define how music works and is to be played based on a subjective perception of it. And y'know, there are others systems of music theory besides the Western one.
>>60803787
>You are making the claim it's not relevant and/or random. The burden of proof is on you.
You brought up a link with no obvious relation to the discussion whatsoever saying it proves you equation of music with heart surgery, you have to explain how it does it. Quit your bullshit.
>Not sufficiently. Try again.
Why do you think my explanation was not sufficient? Could you provide a counter-argument?
>>60803119
literally 25min read and you have this covered, check Bruner (1990).
>>60803203
Agreed
>>60803907
>You brought up a link with no obvious relation
Do you not know what specialization is?
>Could you provide a counter-argument?
I will when you explain yourself more thoroughly.
Reiterating my point, music theory has its purpose but being knowledgeable on it doesn't make your opinion on it any more valid, as nobody reads a music review to know what polymeters are used or how complex are the chord progressions, but to know about the instrumentation, the melodies/riffs/beats/grooves, the lyrics, etc., an explanation which people who never studied (or only studied the basics of) music theory are completely capable of.
>>60804066
an explanation of*
completely capable of giving*
>>60804066
>people who never studied (or only studied the basics of) music theory are completely capable of.
Show us 30 examples.
>>60803966
>Do you not know what specialization is?
Yep, what I don't know is how it's relevant to the discussion.
>I will when you explain yourself more thoroughly.
Again, why do you think my explanation wasn't sufficient?
>when a bait thread gets over 130 replies
stay smart /mu/
>>60804120
99% of music reviews ever made?
>>60804144
>Yep, what I don't know is how it's relevant to the discussion.
You don't know how training in one's profession is relevant to it?
>Again, why do you think my explanation wasn't sufficient?
Because you are being intentionally vague but want me to be overly specific. I thought I'd expose that.
>>60804193
Specifics please. List 30 examples.
>>60804249
>You don't know how training in one's profession is relevant to it?
I don't know how it proves music and heart surgery are comparable.
>Because you are being intentionally vague but want me to be overly specific.
Could you explain why my argument was vague?
>Specifics please. List 30 examples.
You're kidding me dude? Just see any review on Pitchfork, NME, Fantano, Scaruffi, Christgau, see if they ever talk about polymeters or any of that shit. And no, I won't be providing 30 examples, this isn't necessary to the discussion.
I, for one, just don't understand how someone could be interested in something - whatever it is, art, music, cinema, reading, etc - and not wish to undertand the most technical aspects of it in order to understand the whole thing better.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just really don't understand. Do you essentially fear that music is like a magician's trick, where knowing how it was done ruins the illusion?
>>60804368
>I don't know how it proves music and heart surgery are comparable.
How are they not?
>Could you explain why my argument was vague?
You want me to explain your argument for you?
>Just see any review
Not what I'm asking.
>see if they ever talk about polymeters or any of that shit.
Scruffy does not. He has never illustrated a deeper understanding of music theory in any of his essays. You won't prove otherwise.
>this isn't necessary to the discussion.
So wait, I need to explain myself about specialization, but you don't need to back up your non specific claim about music criticism demonstrating knowledge of music theory?
>>60801003
>equal temperament log^12 system
>simple math
How's your first day thinking about this shit going for you?
Or do you exclusively listen to just-intonation music?
>>60804639
>How's your first day thinking about this shit going for you?
If you don't think that's simple, then it's probably your first day.
>>60804663
Yes, I clearly don't understand the math here. For example, I have no idea that a just 5th is a 3/2 ratio to the fundamental, which is a simple calculation, whereas an equal tempered 5th is 2 cents off of just in order to make the temperament possible, which renders the mathematical relationship significantly more complicated, involving base 12 logarithms.
Please enlighten me with your continued assertions you don't feel the need to back up in any way.
>>60804419
i just dgas personally lol
>>60804663
Tell me how to calculate a pythagorean comma and maybe I'll believe you aren't a rank fucking amateur.
Music theory is just a THEORY you idiots
Doesn't exist, it's a spook!
>>60804786
>>60804821
And here come the Butthurt STEM Brigade!
>>60804875
Except that I'm here to argue against the idea that you need to know music theory to appreciate or discuss music. I happen to have a fascination with theory and have studied tuning theory and history, that's my thing. I responded to some asshole who argued that it's simple math that everyone should know, when they don't k of the first thing. I am defending the notion that the math isn't required for appreciation.
>I dont need music theory
stay casual /mu/. Just means less competition for us with the knowledge.
>>60804949
Did the Ramones need theory?
That's what I thought, poser. Now delete this post b4 I go in on you
>>60804970
haha. you dont need theory to write popular music.
Punk is the genre with the least theory. Also why its one of the worst musically.
Fawlty Towers > Ripping Yarns
>>60804914
>Except that I'm here to argue against the idea that you need to know music theory to appreciate or discuss music
You are not doing a good job of it.
>>60804914
>I responded to some asshole who argued that it's simple math that everyone should know,
Quote me where I said that.
>I am defending the notion that the math isn't required for appreciation.
No one said that.
>>60804970
Do you think they were playing random notes on a guitar or did they somehow learn chord construction and how to string together a chord sequence that is harmonically pleasing by accident or what?
>>60805027
Max Martin was just commenting that his background in theory has helped write so many of the top hits today.
>>60805069
>Do you think they were playing random notes on a guitar
yes
>>60804970
You don't "use" theory. It's like "using" physics when you jump.
>>60804949
This is pretty ridiculous, all those fancy terms are useless to artists. As a musician all you need is experimentation, influence, and artistic judgement. If you want to churn out exact copies of conventional music, by all means learn theory and feel pretentious about lacking creative intuition
>>60805069
>Max Martin was just commenting that his background in theory has helped write so many of the top hits today
thats why he's so successful in the popular music world. The combination of music theory and marketing makes him one of the most successful pop producers in recent history.
You never "need" theory to make music. It only improves the music you'r able to write
>>60805178
False dichotomy
>>60805178
"It sounds good"
limited by your ignorance. There's a whole world of interesting ways to make music out there. Feel free them neglect it though.
>>60805215
nah
>>60805178
Haha is this that anon claiming to be a session musician?
>>60805210
I wasn't implying he *needed* it, but that it's no coincidence that these top hit makers are Theoryfags in general.
I agree with you though.
>>60805230
You're pretty dense, you don't need to know exactly what you're doing to experiment, you can manipulate sound without knowing a made up term for what you're specifically doing, just clashing together pots and pans is creating complex harmonics and textures.
>>60805292
>You're pretty dense, you don't need to know exactly what you're doing to experiment
You need to learn the rules before you can break them.
>>60805300
This is not true btw
>>60805324
Why not?
>>60805365
Because just doing things based on intuition, you're bound to break rules anyways
>>60805419
How would you know if you were if you didn't know the rules to begin with?
>>60805069
My initial post literally responded to someone saying that the "simple math" rendered theory objective and was clearly arguing in favor of the necessity of theory for giving an opinion, which incidentally is the whole point of this thread.
If you can't follow that simple line of reasoning it's not my fault.
>>60803733
I wish to have an informed opinion on something so I don't look like a fucking retard, unlike yourself.
>>60805485
>My initial post literally responded to someone saying that the "simple math" rendered theory objective
Quote me where I said that
>and was clearly arguing in favor of the necessity of theory for giving an opinion
I wasn't. once again, you are misinterpreting a post and sperging out.
>>60803771
Except I've already told you I interpret emotion and colors from melody. Do you know how to read?
>>60805442
You don't need to know. Artistic expression is about playing around and experimenting, letting your intuitive judgement create. Not having your mind filled with academic noise, the evolution of music was the result of experimenting and having accidents, finding out that something sounds good. You don't need to overthink when it comes to music and art
>>60805510
You don't need to be taught how to interpret art or emotion, that's fucking ridiculous
>>60804970
Except Ramones is populist garbage that appeal only to simple-minded dullards. Get on my level, retard.
>>60805541
Begging the question now.
>>60805550
I am looking for the words "rendered theory objective" and they are not there.
Try again.
>>60805541
>Artistic expression is about playing around and experimenting
How do you know you are not just repeating what has been done before when trying to "experiment"?
>Not having your mind filled with academic noise
What do you think Music Theory is?
>>60805593
It's not about breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules, or following rules for the sake of following rules. It's about not having such a linear thought pattern and creating from the heart, possibilities are endless with intuition
>>60805563
>You don't need to be taught how to interpret art or emotion
I see why you were calling me autistic, and that isn't what I meant. No, you don't need to be "taught" how to interpret music.
What you DO need is to practice listen to music in a very focused and discerning sense so you can make up your own, individual interpretations that actually have some interesting substance beyond "It just sounds good, rite?".
There is some exceptions to this: in sufficient;y complex, experimental, and foreign context (Like Serialism, or Hindustani Classical music, which uses totally foreign musical concepts and devices), it is important to understand how others (with some semblances of intelligence and substance to their opinion) interpret the work.
>>60805572
Don't make me post a image of a silly nerd hat on you
>>60805649
Doesn't address anything I just said. Try again.
>creating from the heart, possibilities are endless with intuition
Why would you not do this anyways?
>>60805658
Tip your Fedora at me all you want, Ramones is literally trash to my ears. Listening to their music is literally like watching paint dry.
>>60805648
Anyone who listens to lots of music from a wide variety will understand music, not necessarily in music theory terms, but they'll have a most likely deeper intuitive understanding of music. If you want to make interesting music, listen to lots of music don't bother with theory
Music theory is better for analyzing music in depth than forming opinions on it.
Objectively speaking, some things are better composed than others. But how "good sounding" something is is entirely subjective.
>>60801358
No, he's right. You learn even some of that stuff and ihings become pretty predictable unless it's pretty off the wall stuff.
>>60805632
I'm going with what the other anon here asked: What do you think Music Theory means?
>>60805600
>I'm the one sperging out here.
The thread is about whether theory is required to have a valid opinion on music.
Somebody writes that theory is just theory, not proven (which is synonymous with objective, this is the nature of proof, proof applies in all cases and is therefore objective)
Somebody (you?) Greentexts sarcastically that "simple mathematical intervals" aren't proven, implying that in fact the other anon is wrong and theory is in fact not "just theory" but is proven (aka objectively valid).
Now you think it matters that you didn't use a specific phrase?
>>60800722
Roriconfan?
>>60805727
Ooops you didn't seem to answer my question.
Try one last time.
>>60805692
*moves out-of-style head garm*
>>60805694
>Anyone who listens to lots of music from a wide variety will understand music
This is not universally true. I've talked to tons of people who listen to wide varieties of metal, pop, rock of whatever kind, and all they can must up in their interpretations is "it sounds good", and any continual prodding about the intricacies of the music they listen to is met with a dismissal shrug.
Stop making sweeping statements and speak for your fucking self.
>>60805648
So you think you can have a valid opinion of serialism without understanding pitch-class sets, but I couldn't have a valid opinion about neutral milk hotel without understanding how a dominant 7th chord works in a tonal harmony context?
>>60805756
What question did I not answer?
Or are you literally retarded?
>>60805804
I've known quite a few people who couldn't begin to explain why they liked a certain song, CD, whatever other than "it sounds good" .
>>60805717
It's the categorization of sound and technique, it seems like lots of music theory anons think that those who don't know these defined categorizations are stupid and don't "understand" what they're hearing, that they can't possibly stumble across any of these defined techniques without theory. My biggest argument is that this way of thinking is garbage, but people who lack creativity. Most people who listen to lots of music from a wide variety do have an understanding of music, it's just more intuitive than based on academic categorizations. The whole argument that you need to know theory to truly understand music is ridiculous, it's like saying you need to be taught English to know what a tree is, to understand beauty, or emotions
>>60805692
Try Gentle Giant. Sounds like something you'll be interested in.
>>60805804
Just because someone doesn't know academic definitions for the things they enjoy, doesn't mean they're stupid and unable to experience the magic intuitively. They're just not going to artistically tell you it in a specific terminology, because what they experience with music is most likely too nuanced to accurately describe
>>60805855
>What question did I not answer?
1. Quote me where I said that "simple math that everyone should know" and "simple math rendered theory objective"
2. How do you know you are not just repeating what has been done before when trying to "experiment"?
3. What do you think Music Theory is?
Three specific questions you didn't answer
>>60805880
>it seems like lots of music theory anons think that those who don't know these defined categorizations are stupid and don't "understand" what they're hearing
That is true, they don't.
>Most people who listen to lots of music from a wide variety do have an understanding of music, it's just more intuitive than based on academic categorizations
They are still not understanding what they are hearing.
>The whole argument that you need to know theory to truly understand music is ridiculous
You don't *need* anything. You are the only one here making the claim that anyone said that in the first place.
>it's like saying you need to be taught English to know what a tree is
No, but you need to know English to discuss it.
>>60805880
To me at least, you need to know theory to do certain kinds of music. Intuition alone will not get you to the level of someone like Art Tatum, for example. Even something as disliked as Death Metal had bands that no amount of sheer intuition will help you. you have to have knowledge of theory to write the material.
>>60805810
>So you think you can have a valid opinion of serialism without understanding pitch-class sets
I actually don't know the answer to that because I have neither studied, nor gotten to listen to a substantial portion of Schoenberg's works. All I know about Serialism at this moment is via proxy effect, or what I've heard that has been influenced by the composition technique.
>but I couldn't have a valid opinion about neutral milk hotel without understanding how a dominant 7th chord works in a tonal harmony context?
No, you don't need to know how "rules" work. What you would need to have a valid opinion, in my opinion, is to know what a dominant 7th is, what is sounds like, and be able to interpret some sort of color or emotion from it...
Actually, no, you don't even need to know the term, you just have to be able to recognize that sound, and interpret emotion from it specifically.
The only point I'm making here is this:
>There is musical theory that deals with sound itself, and not just notation or some other unrelated catagory.
>The sonic category of Music Theory intrinsically involves developing a focused and discerning ear toward the aspect of music, specifically rhythm, song-structure, and melody & harmony.
>To certain people who have a preference toward analytical modes of listening (like myself), as distinct from people who just like to listen to it "for the magic" (Which isn't analytical), learning and recognizing the sounds that are correlated with musical theory terms and concepts can lead to more focused and discerning interpretations of emotion, color, etc. from music.
>>60805952
>They're just not going to artistically tell you it in a specific terminology, because what they experience with music is most likely too nuanced to accurately describe
Or they literally don't have any depth to their interpretations at all, and they simple interpret baseline, superficial sensory appeal, with no such nuanced emotional interpretations.
There are people like what you describe in the world, and there are people like what I describe in the world. Again, stop making these sweeping statements to back up your viewpoint. Speak for yourself.
>>60806090
And before you rebuke me, not I don't think being able to list musical theory terms is a necessity to having a nuanced viewpoint. I've talked to people who provide indepth interpretations of melody with out knowing the exact scale used Ala.
"I just love the disturbing and creepy emotions evoked by their chord choices/melodies"
Or something along those lines.
>>60805974
You are confused as to who youre talking to.
I have studied harmony, counterpoint, music history, tuning theory, the structure of atonal music, Maqqam, pelog and other gamelan tuning theory, etc...
Your has Leopard intro to fretboard theory makes you the authority on nothing, and you've demonstrated your inability to follow simple reasoning.
Have fun plebbing out.
>>60806130
>Maqqam, pelog and other gamelan tuning theory
Really? That's actually interesting! Where did you study that? At a school, a online site, a textbook?
>>60805974
You can understand and know something without having a defined term for it, art and music deals with the nuances especially. Knowing a term for something isn't the same as intuitively understanding and experiencing it. It's autistic as fuck to think you have a higher understanding of music because you can categorize sound into definitions, most people take in sonic distinctions, it's not as if most people just take in pure static unless they're taught how to listen to music. Again, understanding music and understanding terminology aren't the same thing, you're not blind to everything that doesn't have a categorical definition
>>60806175
How do you define "Intuition"
>>60806130
>Your has Leopard intro to fretboard theory makes you the authority on nothing, and you've demonstrated your inability to follow simple reasoning.
You are confused as to who youre talking to.
>>60806175
>You can understand and know something without having a defined term for it
If one can't explain it, how can we know they understand it?
>Knowing a term for something isn't the same as intuitively understanding and experiencing it
You can do both though. And the people who do both inherently have a better opinion than the people who only do the later.
>>60806175
I agree with you and >>60806225 is a faggot.
>>60806225
>If one can't explain it, how can we know they understand it?
intuitive understanding, intuitive awareness. You don't need to understand something in an academic fashion to validate understanding. What we're really arguing here though, is my more Eastern mindset vs conventional Western mindset that things are their definition rather than the other way around, I would even say that all distinctions are inherently illusive.
>>60806360
>intuitive understanding, intuitive awareness
How can we know this exists?
>>60806358
Suckers are born every minute I suppose
>>60806409
>Suckers
Haha, :^) Best u got, m8?
>>60806409
>How can we know this exists?
Do you actually understand what you're asking? Don't start jumping into extreme skepticism with first defining the object in question.
>>60806409
Do definitions prove existence? Do you think that nothing exists unless they're defined? If where going here, how do we know anything inherently exists? I'd say that all experience is existence whether it exists or not doesn't matter, just trust intuition
>>60806435
Is "faggot" the best you got?
>>60806459
Answer the question.
>>60806482
You're a plummy faggot.
>>60806482
>Answer the question.
I'm a different anon. I'm just saying, ask for the dudes definition of the term before you start questioning it's ontic statues.
>>60806007
>>60806149
Plz Rspnd T_T
>>60806478
>Do you think that nothing exists unless they're defined?
Quantum mathematics implies this actually.
But you still have to answer the question: how do you know someone just intuitively understands music, if they don't express it? It sure is convenient for your argument.
It's like when I asked you to demonstrate that Scruffy knows theory based on his essays, but you avoided doing so because you couldn't.
>>60806532
>I'm a different anon.
Thanks for playing.
>>60806578
You still haven't asked him to clarify what he mean by intuitive...
But he doesn't seem to be here anymore, so I guess this is pointless. Oh well.
>>60806578
You don't need to prove anything, from personal experience though I know that I understand music, sonic distinction's the same way I would understand what hot and cold feels like if I didn't know English. You know what something feels like without needing to figure out what it's definition is, you can experience subtleties and distinctions without learning their definitions, and sometimes definitions leave out the essence of what really is, which I think music and art is a way to recapture essense
the real test of music theory would be - can it be used to describe a piece of music in sufficient detail for the track to be reproduced by a third party?
and if so, is that going to be quicker or more effective than just playing the person the track?
if not then theory is too clunky to be of much practical use to a musician
>>60806650
>You still haven't asked him to clarify what he mean by intuitive...
That's because that's my ace in the hole
>>60806698
Blind questioning the existence of an object that you haven't defined? That literally makes your argument english-sounding gibberish.
>>60806695
>from personal experience though I know that I understand music
Well you can't use this as evidence because you already admitted you yourself know Music Theory.
But if you want to go that ground, my own personal experience is that people with Theory have a better understanding of music than the ones who don't.
>>60806697
You mean like sheet music?
>>60806697
A valid philosophy, if I've ever seen one.
>>60806697
>if not then theory is too clunky to be of much practical use to a musician
lmao what
>>60806753
yeah
in certain contexts sheet music is perfectly adequate, in others less so
the value of theory lies in its ability to perform transcription, and that varies a lot by context
>>60806729
What are you even talking about?
>>60806772
>yeah
Well there's your answer then.
>>60802291
This.
I like to take this approach to all models of the world.
Sometimes I'll just say that things that are getting hotter are getting colder or speeding up when they're slowing down because I mean, fuck describing things in a consistent and easy to understand manner.
>>60806149
I went to Turkey on a grant to study Maqqam. The rest was all from books while I was in school, but not through the school. Learning about tuning theory is in my opinion 100 times more fruitful than learning western harmony. The basics of Western harmony are intuitively understood by everyone in this culture, and the more advanced stuff legitimately doesn't apply to a thing these days (open 4ths, for example, abound in everyone's favorite music, despite being forbidden in counterpoint.)
>>60806773
You are asking if something exists, but what that something is hasn't been defined.
It's like asking if you can prove God's existence with out first ensuring a common definition of God. Epistemology 101...
Actually no, that's just communication skills.
>>60806753
They don't always, like I said earlier taking in lots of music and sound is a better way to get a deep understanding of music than just learning theory. Theory is only linguistic distinction, which isn't more valid than intuitive distinction
>>60806798
yeah it can describe classical music perfectly well, full marks for noticing
there are other kinds of music it would struggle with though, like musique concrete for example where it it woefully inadequate
>>60806815
>Theory is only linguistic distinction
But that's wrong. Part of what "understanding music theory" means IS recognizing the sounds it is correlated to... Literally, understanding the aspects of the music.
>>60806827
>there are other kinds of music it would struggle with though, like musique concrete for example where it it woefully inadequate
Which is where 20th/21st century innovations in notation come in. See Krzysztof Penderecki
>>60806812
You are misunderstanding me. Is it on purpose?
>>60806827
Oh were you posing a question you already knew the answer to?
>>60806815
>They don't always
You know the same people I've met? I doubt it.
>like I said earlier taking in lots of music and sound is a better way to get a deep understanding of music than just learning theory
Most people who bother learning theory have already "taken in sound to get a deeper understanding".
Why do you think everything is black and white, you either do one or the other?
>>60806799
Artists don't need to describe anything in an academic matter, art is not about language it's about essence. Artistic expression is communicating essence through pure intuition, aka what most would call from the heart
>>60806867
there isn't a form of notation for recorded sound which provides greater resolution than recording technology, so it;s practically useless
i mean you can draw your shapes if you want but i'm sticking with a recording device
>>60806885
>You are misunderstanding me. Is it on purpose?
I'm another anon who just jumped in randomly. Perhaps I've misunderstood you. Kindly forget about my posts, if this is so.
>>60806885
wow you are one attention whoring cunt, hello
>>60801632
music theory isn't the same thing as aesthetic theory and that's what every single person who talks about it on here gets wrong
>>60806902
Can you give us an example of an artist who did that?
