Musical capabilities.

So.
Let's say I want to go deeper into musical theory just to get the intermediate base (wow, oxymoron if I do say so myself) and I don't have time for professional lessons necessarily...

What should I start with?
I'm struggling with guitar as you probably know, and if you don't... well.

Certif1ed wrote: Shocktaktix wrote: I wouldn't say I have perfect pitch, as I do not believe such a thing exists and anyone who claims to have that facility is a fantasist.   You've obviously never met someone who has it then - or because you don't have it, you don't understand how anyone could I have met two other people that have it in my entire life - and would agree that in those two it was a little hit and miss, as they could not do clusters, and got confused by notes outside of their singing range. Within their ranges, they were 100% though. I must be very lucky, as I can identify every note on most pianos (when they're out of tune it's difficult - as you might understand!) - and any other instrument except, perhaps, those of far Eastern origin...

Actually I think he is trying to provoke you Cert !

I don't know Bebe... I have 2 friends that have perfect pitch, they both play keyboards very well...and both have very bad migraines... don't know if its all part of some package... but I wouldn't want it!

 

Except for not having perfect pitch (I have what is called "perfect relative pitch," which means I need only hear one note to identify every other note or chord in an entire piece), I'm very much in Cert's corner here.

I started theory when I was 5 years old, as part of a "pilot" class developed by Carl Orff (which, along with Suzuki, has become the standard for teaching music to children).  I started classical piano when I was 7 (two years before my music school permitted private lessons), and played my first piano recital (to a sold-out audience of about 300) when I was 8.  I took classical piano for 5 years, but ended up leaving it for jazz and pop, which I took for three years.  I continued with theory as well, reaching "advanced" composition when I was 14.  I then attended the High School of Music & Art, where I continued to take theory, as well as vocal training (I was already singing when I was 7).  As an aside, I was pianist for the HSMA Jazz Band, voted #1 high school jazz band three years in a row.  The drummer was Kenny Washington (perhaps the most sought after jazz drummer in the world today) and the bassist was Marcus Miller (who went on to produce Herbie Hancock's Grammy-winning "Rockit" album, as well as making quite a name for himself as a session bassist).

All in all, I had over 13 years continuous theory training, as well as almost 10 years of piano, vocal and drum/percussion training.

Having musical training is a double-edged sword vis-a-vis enjoying music.  On the one hand, it can clearly enhance what one hears when one understands how a piece was composed, executed, etc.  However, it can also "interfere" because a musician can never not be a musician, so it is impossible to "turn it off" if one wants to listen to something in a "pure" way.

Peace.

maani wrote: Having musical training is a double-edged sword vis-a-vis enjoying music.  On the one hand, it can clearly enhance what one hears when one understands how a piece was composed, executed, etc.  However, it can also "interfere" because a musician can never not be a musician, so it is impossible to "turn it off" if one wants to listen to something in a "pure" way. Peace.

Unlucky you!

I find I can "turn everything off" - except for perfect pitch

So if I want to simply chill without analysing - that's exactly what I do. Just enjoy the music for the simple pleasure it gives - undertake a different form of analysis; How does the music make you feel?

That's something you can't rationalise or equate to areas of musical theory - and it's blissful therapy to any trained musician; kind of going out the other side, as it were.

It's a great way to write music too - forget all the training, and write music that just transports you to wherever you want to be. You then have the added advantage that you can analyse it later, pull it to pieces and carefully re-assemble the bits that glaringly upset the rules by re-applying the rules in a "creative" way.

Learning theory does not train the art of making music out of you, or destroy innocent enjoyment!

What you are doing, and what most teachers neglect to inform, is that you are merely learning theory. Theory is best learnt by memorising sets of rules and regulations - but best applied by continuing with practical study and playing with those rules and learning how to break them!

Music is very fluid stuff and hates being bottled. Anyone can learn to write in the style of J. S. Bach, which is where most instruction tends to concentrate - and it's very useful indeed, as Bach's theories are still more than relevant in Western music. But the idea is not simply to learn how to write cycles of fifths or mulitple sustained 4ths, but to understand how to apply the techniques.

Likewise, if you learn to compose in the style of, e.g. Messiaen, you don't meticulously apply a Sanskrit rhythm painstakingly to a pre-ordained note-row, or even adhere to the numerical rules you worked out - you establish the rules early on, then, like Beethoven, break them gently or smash them up - in order to create the music that you hear in your head : YOUR MUSIC.

If you enjoy the instruction and have a good teacher, you should find that your listening is only enhanced.

I have often heard the story you mention, maani, but usually from non-musical folk insisting that training does that to you - can I politely ask if you've ever tried the simple technique I mentioned in my first paragraph?

Edited by Certif1ed

I did 2 years of theory, mainly 4 voice writing, but I'm such a bad sightreader and I  always needed the piano to put the stuff to paper. Still I regret that I stopped.. 4 voice writing and counterpoint are really the best to understand composition.