Print Page | Close Window

Academically Qualified?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Top 10s and lists
Forum Description: List all your favourites here
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=65148
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 09:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Academically Qualified?
Posted By: ABC
Subject: Academically Qualified?
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 15:29
Which band members' were academically qualified?
I know about gryphon.
 
Who else?



Replies:
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 15:58
Ian Anderson always used to boast that David Palmer was "from the Royal College of Music".

Other than that, I believe Brian May has a Ph.D!


Posted By: ABC
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 17:28
Yes, in physics. hehe.
I meant musicly of course.
It is amazing that some of these bands made such complicated music with no in depth academic knowledge.


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 17:33
Fred Frith teaches a music class at a college out in California. I don't know his educational credentials however.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Tarquin Underspoon
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 17:39
Not to be "the guy that brings DT into the thread only to be ignored because DT is possibly the most exhausted and universally annoying topic in the forum to all but the 15 fanboys who lurk in the shadows of PA for fear of being excommunicated from the Prog world".....but Dream Theater went to Berklee. Does that count for anything?
 
'course, they dropped out.......


-------------
"WAAAAAAOOOOOUGH!    WAAAAAAAUUUUGGHHHH!!   WAAAAAOOOO!!!"

-The Great Gig in the Sky


Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 17:39
Not prog, I know, but Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello is a Harvard graduate. 


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 17:42
Ed Macan graduated from Oakland University (my alma mater) and now teaches music in California. He is the leader of the band Hermetic Science, with the band members being his students. http://www.hermeticscience.com/biography.htm - http://www.hermeticscience.com/biography.htm

-------------


Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 17:48
  Keyboard musician J. Peter Robinson from Quatermass, and german keyboardists Jurgen Fritz from Triumvirat and Jurgen Dollase from Wallenstein all have music degrees, Robinson i believe from the Royal College of Music, and Fritz from the Cologne Conservatory, and Dollase i am not exactly sure where, must be somewhere in Europe.. And i must add, that listening to the high quality of their music, it shows!


Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 17:57
Originally posted by Tarquin Underspoon Tarquin Underspoon wrote:

Not to be "the guy that brings DT into the thread only to be ignored because DT is possibly the most exhausted and universally annoying topic in the forum to all but the 15 fanboys who lurk in the shadows of PA for fear of being excommunicated from the Prog world".....but Dream Theater went to Berklee. Does that count for anything?
 
'course, they dropped out.......


Didn't Jordan Rudess graduate from Juilliard?


Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 18:04
Originally posted by Raff Raff wrote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Underspoon Tarquin Underspoon wrote:

Not to be "the guy that brings DT into the thread only to be ignored because DT is possibly the most exhausted and universally annoying topic in the forum to all but the 15 fanboys who lurk in the shadows of PA for fear of being excommunicated from the Prog world".....but Dream Theater went to Berklee. Does that count for anything?
 
'course, they dropped out.......


Didn't Jordan Rudess graduate from Juilliard?


All of the original members went to Berklee (Rudess isn't one of them) Smile


-------------

Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime


Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 18:07
Dave Cousins of the Strawbs has a BSc in Stats from Leicester. Brian May got a BSc in Astronomy from Imperial, then quit his PhD to go full time with Queen, but he's since completed it. John Deacon has a BSc in Electronics from one of the London Uni colleges.

There are many, many more degree educated musicians.


-------------
A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life.


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 18:32
Who cares?


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 19:11
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 19:22
the most gifted are not constrained by a 'formal' education... it comes from natural talent and ability.

It's like intelligence..  you don't go to college to get smart.. only educated.  One of most treasured of my shattered misconceptions about life is a person with more college than many doctors is not any smarter than a kid who never finished high school.  Only more educated and more of a challenge when playing trivial pursuit hahah


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 19:27
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*


Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex).

He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician.

Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end.

-Jeff


-------------

Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime


Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 19:33
Guys, I believe the original poster started the thread out of curiosity, not because he looks down at 'uneducated' musicians - there is nothing in his original post implying such an attitude. And bringing up examples like Beethoven, who lived over 200 years ago, when it was VERY unusual for most people to have a formal education, is neither here nor there. Just my own two cents, of course.


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 19:41
I wasn't aware that we were behaving as if we thought that's what he meant. For whatever reason somebody would want to know which musicians had proper training, my answer will always be: ''who cares?''. 

Because that's just how I feel about it. Wink No harm was meant. 


Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 19:44
Originally posted by fuxi fuxi wrote:

Ian Anderson always used to boast that David Palmer was "from the Royal College of Music".

Other than that, I believe Brian May has a Ph.D!


and he is the chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University

Rick Wakeman studied piano, clarinet, orchestration and modern music at the Royal College of Music although he left school....

Pedro Castillo from the Venezuelan band Tempano is an electrical engineer

Schlomo Gronich from Ktzat Acheret holds a B.A. in Music Education from Tel Aviv Educational Academy, and a B.A. in Composition from the Mannes School of Music, New York

and Sting was a literature teacher....

-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)



Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 19:47
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

I wasn't aware that we were behaving as if we thought that's what he meant. For whatever reason somebody would want to know which musicians had proper training, my answer will always be: ''who cares?''.


Well, if someone ask, then that person definitely cares, so I don't see why asking that question in the first place Wink


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 19:47
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*
 


I would tend to think many progressive players put themselves through college books on their own. Along with taking music instruction from great jazz and classical players at a young age. With this kind of background and a trained ear along the way.......and having talent,....they could accomplish anything.


Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 19:54
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

I wasn't aware that we were behaving as if we thought that's what he meant. For whatever reason somebody would want to know which musicians had proper training, my answer will always be: ''who cares?''. 
Because that's just how I feel about it. Wink No harm was meant. 


...well if certain musicians are formally trained or not that is part of their personal artistic development and if you want to understand the background and origin of their work that is an important piece of it.

This, of course, does not mean that ones are superior to the other but you can note the differences and the way they play is marked by that... for example: two of my favorite drummers are Carl Palmer and Bill Bruford, the first one is classically trained but the second one learnt by himself and you can notice that Palmer is more technical and Bruford has more of a free style of playing... hence his Jazz tendencies while Palmer is more of an orchestral percussionist...

-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)



Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 07:14
Originally posted by ABC ABC wrote:

Yes, in physics. hehe.
I meant musicly of course.

It is amazing that some of these bands made such complicated music with no in depth academic knowledge.


Not really. What may sound very complicated to the relatively untrained ear, will come to any have decent musican, with plenty of practice. When Genesis and Yes started out, they were nowhere near the musicians they were just four years later. Same can be said for Rush, or any band for that matter.

I think the stamp of a good musican, is not whether he/she can read, write and fully understand musical theory, it's whether they are able to effectively translate the ideas in their mind, into music..through whatever means.

Bear in mind, also that the mindset of classical musicans, is very different from that of jazz and rock musicians. Firstly, classical is about composition. Improvisation is sneered at in classical circles. Classical music is played as dictated by the sheet music, that the composer composed. It actually doen't follow that a classically trained pianist - for example - could immediately and effectively turn his/her hand to jazz improv.

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: dwill123
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 07:41


Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 08:34
Originally posted by dwill123 dwill123 wrote:



Now that's one cool picture!
I seem to remember Van Morrison has at least one honorary doctorate.
And isn't Steve Hillage a philosophy graduate from the University of Kent?
"Oh me oh my there's a LIGHT in the sky!"


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 12:47
Originally posted by J-Man J-Man wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*


Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex).

He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician.

Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end.

-Jeff


Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher.

But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down.


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 12:51
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by J-Man J-Man wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*


Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex).

He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician.

Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end.

-Jeff


Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher.

But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down.

VERY well put, Aleks. Clap


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 13:10
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by J-Man J-Man wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*


Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex).

He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician.

Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end.

-Jeff


Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher.

But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down.

VERY well put, Aleks. Clap
That's all well and good for the listening to music, but doesn't say much for the creation of music.
 
There is a huge gulf between being a great musician and being a great composer- the two disciplines are related but it does not follow that a great player will write great music.
 
While intuition, gut-feel and a damn good ear counts for a lot, understanding, music theory and composition cannot be dismissed.
 
oh, yeah, Beethoven's father was a music teacher - he got his early music education at home - he then studied under Neefe and then Haydn, who taught him the finer points of counter-point. Lugwig was far from uneducated.


-------------
What?


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 13:15
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by J-Man J-Man wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*


Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex).

He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician.

Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end.

-Jeff


Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher.

But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down.

VERY well put, Aleks. Clap
That's all well and good for the listening to music, but doesn't say much for the creation of music.
 
There is a huge gulf between being a great musician and being a great composer- the two disciplines are related but it does not follow that a great player will write great music.
 
While intuition, gut-feel and a damn good ear counts for a lot, understanding, music theory and composition cannot be dismissed.
 
oh, yeah, Beethoven's father was a music teacher - he got his early music education at home - he then studied under Neefe and then Haydn, who taught him the finer points of counter-point. Lugwig was far from uneducated.

Not once did any of us ever 'dismiss' music theory, nor did we say that it was foolish to learn music 'properly'. We simply think that it is not necessary for everyone in order to make great music. 

You are acting as if you need to defend your position here, when it hasn't even been attacked.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 13:23
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by J-Man J-Man wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*


Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex).

He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician.

Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end.

-Jeff


Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher.

But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down.

VERY well put, Aleks. Clap
That's all well and good for the listening to music, but doesn't say much for the creation of music.
 
There is a huge gulf between being a great musician and being a great composer- the two disciplines are related but it does not follow that a great player will write great music.
 
While intuition, gut-feel and a damn good ear counts for a lot, understanding, music theory and composition cannot be dismissed.
 
oh, yeah, Beethoven's father was a music teacher - he got his early music education at home - he then studied under Neefe and then Haydn, who taught him the finer points of counter-point. Lugwig was far from uneducated.

Not once did any of us ever 'dismiss' music theory, nor did we say that it was foolish to learn music 'properly'. We simply think that it is not necessary for everyone in order to make great music. 

You are acting as if you need to defend your position here, when it hasn't even been attacked.
Eh? Confused

-------------
What?


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 13:26
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by J-Man J-Man wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?
This.Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.Booyah, high five *SNAP*
Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex).He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician.Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end.-Jeff
Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher.But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down.


VERY well put, Aleks. Clap

That's all well and good for the listening to music, but doesn't say much for the creation of music.
 

There is a huge gulf between being a great musician and being a great composer- the two disciplines are related but it does not follow that a great player will write great music.

 

While intuition, gut-feel and a damn good ear counts for a lot, understanding, music theory and composition cannot be dismissed.

 

oh, yeah, Beethoven's father was a music teacher - he got his early music education at home - he then studied under Neefe and then Haydn, who taught him the finer points of counter-point. Lugwig was far from uneducated.


Gustav Holst is a good example of what you're saying, re; composers/musicians. He was learning the violin from a very early age, but hated it, and found it very hard, and gave up before the age of ten. He took to the piano, but as far as I'm aware never considered himself good enough to be an actual performer.

His compositions, on the other hand were superb.

These discussions can be overly pedantic, and not being someone who fully understands the technicalities of music theory, I tend to have more affection (rightly or wrongly) for musicians who just 'feel it'...man

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 13:28
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by J-Man J-Man wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*


Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex).

He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician.

Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end.

-Jeff


Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher.

But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down.

VERY well put, Aleks. Clap
That's all well and good for the listening to music, but doesn't say much for the creation of music.
 
There is a huge gulf between being a great musician and being a great composer- the two disciplines are related but it does not follow that a great player will write great music.
 
While intuition, gut-feel and a damn good ear counts for a lot, understanding, music theory and composition cannot be dismissed.
 
oh, yeah, Beethoven's father was a music teacher - he got his early music education at home - he then studied under Neefe and then Haydn, who taught him the finer points of counter-point. Lugwig was far from uneducated.

Not once did any of us ever 'dismiss' music theory, nor did we say that it was foolish to learn music 'properly'. We simply think that it is not necessary for everyone in order to make great music. 

You are acting as if you need to defend your position here, when it hasn't even been attacked.
Eh? Confused

Let me rephrase:

Your points, as well as the ones Aleks and I have made, are ALL valid, and I guess I got the impression that you were somehow offended or put off by what we were saying. If I was wrong in that assumption, then whatever, but like I said, nobody is trying to 'debunk' the importance of music theory, here. But its importance is often times misrepresented and held much higher than it should be. It can be helpful for those who would truly benefit from it, but a lot of musicians (especially in this genre) do not seem to need it at all in order to make great music.


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 13:43
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by J-Man J-Man wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*


Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex).

He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician.

Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end.

-Jeff


Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher.

But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down.

VERY well put, Aleks. Clap
That's all well and good for the listening to music, but doesn't say much for the creation of music.
 
There is a huge gulf between being a great musician and being a great composer- the two disciplines are related but it does not follow that a great player will write great music.
 
While intuition, gut-feel and a damn good ear counts for a lot, understanding, music theory and composition cannot be dismissed.
 
oh, yeah, Beethoven's father was a music teacher - he got his early music education at home - he then studied under Neefe and then Haydn, who taught him the finer points of counter-point. Lugwig was far from uneducated.


In other words, I was saying that music theory isn't necessarily a necessity in writing good music. as far as I see it, all you need is passion (take a look at Stevie Wonder, who I know for a fact had no training whatsoever). However, I was wrong about Beethoven a little. Classical music is a different kettle of fish and you do need formal training to know how chords work, how to make an orchestra sound good and not cluttered, etc... But with that alone, he couldn't have written the masterpieces he did. It's a bit like having the car as music theory and the driver as the composer's own passion and vision. Neither are going to get anywhere without each other. Unless you have a robot driving the car, in which case the end product will sound like Yngwie Malmsteen (it's a joke people, treat it like a joke and don't get all defensive).


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 13:44
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Eh? Confused

Let me rephrase:

Your points, as well as the ones Aleks and I have made, are ALL valid, and I guess I got the impression that you were somehow offended or put off by what we were saying. If I was wrong in that assumption, then whatever, but like I said, nobody is trying to 'debunk' the importance of music theory, here. But its importance is often times misrepresented and held much higher than it should be. It can be helpful for those who would truly benefit from it, but a lot of musicians (especially in this genre) do not seem to need it at all in order to make great music.
It's "Whatever" then. Tongue You should know me well enough by now Wink 

-------------
What?


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 13:45
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by J-Man J-Man wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*


Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex).

He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician.

Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end.

-Jeff


Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher.

But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down.

VERY well put, Aleks. Clap
That's all well and good for the listening to music, but doesn't say much for the creation of music.
 
There is a huge gulf between being a great musician and being a great composer- the two disciplines are related but it does not follow that a great player will write great music.
 
While intuition, gut-feel and a damn good ear counts for a lot, understanding, music theory and composition cannot be dismissed.
 
oh, yeah, Beethoven's father was a music teacher - he got his early music education at home - he then studied under Neefe and then Haydn, who taught him the finer points of counter-point. Lugwig was far from uneducated.


In other words, I was saying that music theory isn't necessarily a necessity in writing good music. as far as I see it, all you need is passion (take a look at Stevie Wonder, who I know for a fact had no training whatsoever). However, I was wrong about Beethoven a little. Classical music is a different kettle of fish and you do need formal training to know how chords work, how to make an orchestra sound good and not cluttered, etc... But with that alone, he couldn't have written the masterpieces he did. It's a bit like having the car as music theory and the driver as the composer's own passion and vision. Neither are going to get anywhere without each other. Unless you have a robot driving the car, in which case the end product will sound like Yngwie Malmsteen (it's a joke people, treat it like a joke and don't get all defensive).

I hate Yngwie with a passion, by the way. LOL


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 13:46
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Eh? Confused

Let me rephrase:

Your points, as well as the ones Aleks and I have made, are ALL valid, and I guess I got the impression that you were somehow offended or put off by what we were saying. If I was wrong in that assumption, then whatever, but like I said, nobody is trying to 'debunk' the importance of music theory, here. But its importance is often times misrepresented and held much higher than it should be. It can be helpful for those who would truly benefit from it, but a lot of musicians (especially in this genre) do not seem to need it at all in order to make great music.
It's "Whatever" then. Tongue You should know me well enough by now Wink 

Sorry, Dean. I'm in one of my moods, apparently. LOL


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 14:12
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


In other words, I was saying that music theory isn't necessarily a necessity in writing good music. as far as I see it, all you need is passion (take a look at Stevie Wonder, who I know for a fact had no training whatsoever). However, I was wrong about Beethoven a little. Classical music is a different kettle of fish and you do need formal training to know how chords work, how to make an orchestra sound good and not cluttered, etc... But with that alone, he couldn't have written the masterpieces he did. It's a bit like having the car as music theory and the driver as the composer's own passion and vision. Neither are going to get anywhere without each other. Unless you have a robot driving the car, in which case the end product will sound like Yngwie Malmsteen (it's a joke people, treat it like a joke and don't get all defensive).
This topic always gets me into trouble Ouch
 
Everyone who learns an instrument picks up Music Theory - it's not a magic black art. For example the Circle of 5ths is something most players know by one means or another and they use it either consciously or subconsciously to develop harmony, chord progressions and modulation - it's an academic fact and an intuitive reality. How that knowledge comes about is immaterial to me, what interests me is how they use that knowledge - in the world of mainstream pop and rock it is rigidly adhered to (usually), in Prog, Jazz (and Classical) it is not - Prog musicians break the rules - how and why they break the rules is something that appeals to me as much as the broken rule itself.
 


-------------
What?


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 14:27
Funny ain't it how trained classical musicians yearn to be able to sit down and improvise while the self taught by ear (long haired proggy critters) yearn eventually to study theory ?
The grass is always greener...(whoopsEmbarrassed)

-------------


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 14:37
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


In other words, I was saying that music theory isn't necessarily a necessity in writing good music. as far as I see it, all you need is passion (take a look at Stevie Wonder, who I know for a fact had no training whatsoever). However, I was wrong about Beethoven a little. Classical music is a different kettle of fish and you do need formal training to know how chords work, how to make an orchestra sound good and not cluttered, etc... But with that alone, he couldn't have written the masterpieces he did. It's a bit like having the car as music theory and the driver as the composer's own passion and vision. Neither are going to get anywhere without each other. Unless you have a robot driving the car, in which case the end product will sound like Yngwie Malmsteen (it's a joke people, treat it like a joke and don't get all defensive).
This topic always gets me into trouble Ouch
 
Everyone who learns an instrument picks up Music Theory - it's not a magic black art. For example the Circle of 5ths is something most players know by one means or another and they use it either consciously or subconsciously to develop harmony, chord progressions and modulation - it's an academic fact and an intuitive reality. How that knowledge comes about is immaterial to me, what interests me is how they use that knowledge - in the world of mainstream pop and rock it is rigidly adhered to (usually), in Prog, Jazz (and Classical) it is not - Prog musicians break the rules - how and why they break the rules is something that appeals to me as much as the broken rule itself.
 


It's like the saying "you have to know the rules before you break them" I suppose. Even if you "know" them subconciously and only go by what sounds good to your ears.


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 14:47
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


In other words, I was saying that music theory isn't necessarily a necessity in writing good music. as far as I see it, all you need is passion (take a look at Stevie Wonder, who I know for a fact had no training whatsoever). However, I was wrong about Beethoven a little. Classical music is a different kettle of fish and you do need formal training to know how chords work, how to make an orchestra sound good and not cluttered, etc... But with that alone, he couldn't have written the masterpieces he did. It's a bit like having the car as music theory and the driver as the composer's own passion and vision. Neither are going to get anywhere without each other. Unless you have a robot driving the car, in which case the end product will sound like Yngwie Malmsteen (it's a joke people, treat it like a joke and don't get all defensive).
This topic always gets me into trouble Ouch
 
Everyone who learns an instrument picks up Music Theory - it's not a magic black art. For example the Circle of 5ths is something most players know by one means or another and they use it either consciously or subconsciously to develop harmony, chord progressions and modulation - it's an academic fact and an intuitive reality. How that knowledge comes about is immaterial to me, what interests me is how they use that knowledge - in the world of mainstream pop and rock it is rigidly adhered to (usually), in Prog, Jazz (and Classical) it is not - Prog musicians break the rules - how and why they break the rules is something that appeals to me as much as the broken rule itself.
 


It's like the saying "you have to know the rules before you break them" I suppose. Even if you "know" them subconciously and only go by what sounds good to your ears.

I still don't buy it. Even if I am learning music theory subconsciously, I am not aware of it, and therefore do not recognize it in my composition or playing. So it's still an adventure for me every time I pick up an instrument. My point is still valid as a result. I could care less if I'm implementing theory without knowing it. What matters is how I choose to look at music, and I view it as an art; not a science. 


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 16:57
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:


I still don't buy it. Even if I am learning music theory subconsciously, I am not aware of it, and therefore do not recognize it in my composition or playing. So it's still an adventure for me every time I pick up an instrument. My point is still valid as a result. I could care less if I'm implementing theory without knowing it. What matters is how I choose to look at music, and I view it as an art; not a science. 
Are you saying you play 100% by ear and don't know any music theory at all?

-------------
What?


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 17:25
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Who cares?


This.

Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.

Booyah, high five *SNAP*

This is hardly accurate. Beethoven may not have gone to school, but he had fantastic tutors, including (eventually) one Franz Joseph Haydn and even (indirectly) one W.A. Mozart. So he got an education. A MUSIC education. Same with Mozart, who had the best teacher he could have since he was born (Leopold, his father).

Yes, talent is important, but without work and guidance, it remains only talent. It's not ART yet. Art is created when talent meets work, and work means training and practicing, and that means being educated. 


-------------


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 17:26
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Funny ain't it how trained classical musicians yearn to be able to sit down and improvise while the self taught by ear (long haired proggy critters) yearn eventually to study theory ?
The grass is always greener...(whoopsEmbarrassed)

I don't think classical musicians yearn to improvise... they yearn for easier music to play so they can also relax... Tongue




-------------


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 17:31
Not prog, but...

Dexter Holland (The Offspring) turned away from a PhD program in molecular biology to be in the band.
Peter Garrett (Midnight Oil) has at least some training in law, and obviously went into politics, but it's unclear from the Wiki whether he formally got a degree.


-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 18:30
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Funny ain't it how trained classical musicians yearn to be able to sit down and improvise while the self taught by ear (long haired proggy critters) yearn eventually to study theory ?
The grass is always greener...(whoopsEmbarrassed)

I don't think classical musicians yearn to improvise... they yearn for easier music to play so they can also relax... Tongue




Not true either. We yearn to be able to phrase a 4/4 semi-quaver trill in 13/8 at about 300 crotchet BPM

And yeah Teo... ignore my Beethoven comment, it was rushed and not thought out properly Oh, to be young and blonde...


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 20:52
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Funny ain't it how trained classical musicians yearn to be able to sit down and improvise while the self taught by ear (long haired proggy critters) yearn eventually to study theory ?
The grass is always greener...(whoopsEmbarrassed)

I don't think classical musicians yearn to improvise... they yearn for easier music to play so they can also relax... Tongue




Not true either. We yearn to be able to phrase a 4/4 semi-quaver trill in 13/8 at about 300 crotchet BPM

And yeah Teo... ignore my Beethoven comment, it was rushed and not thought out properly Oh, to be young and blonde...

Hey... don't be a hairist here.. not accepted. 

Now go and dye that thing over your head... TongueBig smile (actually, I'm kinda brown...) 


-------------


Posted By: Man Overboard
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 22:43
Academically qualified?  Who gives a toss?  I know prog fans like to have reasons they can pull out to boast about how their bands are somehow objectively better or whatever, but come on.  

Roger Waters was moments away from graduating architecture school, and all that really means is that he's qualified to build a house.  Almost.  What's that got to do with prog rock?  It doesn't take college to have an imagination. 


-------------
https://soundcloud.com/erin-susan-jennings" rel="nofollow - Bedroom guitarist". Composer, Arranger, Producer. Perfection may not exist, but I may still choose to serve Perfection.

Commissions considered.


Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 03:53
Like Dean, I don't buy it either that people just play entirely by ear

Mikael Akerfeldt claims to no little of theory.
You will find tritones, the harmonic minor scale, the phrygian dominant mode, key changes that fit well within the circle of 5ths, and chords that extend beyond the "usual" 1 3 5 type chords in his music.
Marty Friedman (of former Megadeth fame), also claims to know little of theory. Having listened to Rust In Peace and his solo album Dragon's Kiss more times than I care to remember, I find it his claim of not knowing theory to be well. full of sh*t basically.
He sure as hell isn't restricted to just 50s style rock and roll pentatonics, that's for sure.

Originally posted by J-Man J-Man wrote:

Originally posted by Raff Raff wrote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Underspoon Tarquin Underspoon wrote:

Not to be "the guy that brings DT into the thread only to be ignored because DT is possibly the most exhausted and universally annoying topic in the forum to all but the 15 fanboys who lurk in the shadows of PA for fear of being excommunicated from the Prog world".....but Dream Theater went to Berklee. Does that count for anything?
 
'course, they dropped out.......


Didn't Jordan Rudess graduate from Juilliard?


All of the original members went to Berklee (Rudess isn't one of them) Smile


All dropped out of Berklee tooTongue

Originally posted by Man Overboard Man Overboard wrote:

Academically qualified?  Who gives a toss?


I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the OP cares

Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:



Bear in mind, also that the mindset of classical musicans, is very different from that of jazz and rock musicians. Firstly, classical is about composition. Improvisation is sneered at in classical circles. Classical music is played as dictated by the sheet music, that the composer composed. It actually doen't follow that a classically trained pianist - for example - could immediately and effectively turn his/her hand to jazz improv.


No, this is not entirely. It is NOT universally sneered at in all classical circles.
To say so is ignorant and naive.
Chopin is in fact notable for having been a masterful improviser, in addition to his excellent technical facility on the piano and his compositional skills.




Posted By: Man Overboard
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 04:07
Originally posted by Petrovsk Mizinski Petrovsk Mizinski wrote:

Like Dean, I don't buy it either that people just play entirely by ear

--

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the OP cares



I play by ear!  I've never had a theory lesson, completely self-taught on guitar, bass, and various keyboards.  I didn't look for online courses or tutorials, just sort of plowed away at it for the past 10 years, figuring what works with what and what doesn't and what makes sense.  I'd beg to wager that many of the guitarists you idolize have similar circumstances and never met with a guitar teacher until their label introduced one if they found it necessary.  I'm no Steve Vai, but I can understand the different feelings that the different modes evoke.  I might not know them by name, but goddamn, at its core you're just playing a familiar scale with a different root chosen.  It's not rocket science, it's music, it's natural, it's existed forever.  I love learning new nuances just about every time I sit down with an instrument.  I wouldn't trade this experience for some cut-and-dry music lessons from people with their own music prejudices.

And yes, I'm sure a lot of people care, but really, -should- they?


-------------
https://soundcloud.com/erin-susan-jennings" rel="nofollow - Bedroom guitarist". Composer, Arranger, Producer. Perfection may not exist, but I may still choose to serve Perfection.

Commissions considered.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 05:46
Originally posted by Man Overboard Man Overboard wrote:

Originally posted by Petrovsk Mizinski Petrovsk Mizinski wrote:

Like Dean, I don't buy it either that people just play entirely by ear

--

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the OP cares



I play by ear!  I've never had a theory lesson, completely self-taught on guitar, bass, and various keyboards.  I didn't look for online courses or tutorials, just sort of plowed away at it for the past 10 years, figuring what works with what and what doesn't and what makes sense.  I'd beg to wager that many of the guitarists you idolize have similar circumstances and never met with a guitar teacher until their label introduced one if they found it necessary.  I'm no Steve Vai, but I can understand the different feelings that the different modes evoke.  I might not know them by name, but goddamn, at its core you're just playing a familiar scale with a different root chosen.  It's not rocket science, it's music, it's natural, it's existed forever.  I love learning new nuances just about every time I sit down with an instrument.  I wouldn't trade this experience for some cut-and-dry music lessons from people with their own music prejudices.

And yes, I'm sure a lot of people care, but really, -should- they?
I've just sent a long PM to Micah explaining my reasoning, I'll not replicate the whole thing here, but just mention one example - The Beatles - not trained in anyway, yet remarkably unconventional to typlical 1960s pop, though not to music theory - they used the IV-I cadence in several of their songs when V-I was the standard, they got that from hymn music, not rock'n'roll - they used it because it just felt right to them, but it is grounded in sane, dry, boring music theory. Theory just explains why things that feel right actually work - you don't need to know it academically to enjoy it or write it, but you do know it in practice through experience - to me they are the same thing.

-------------
What?


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 06:11
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Man Overboard Man Overboard wrote:

Originally posted by Petrovsk Mizinski Petrovsk Mizinski wrote:

Like Dean, I don't buy it either that people just play entirely by ear

--

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the OP cares



I play by ear!  I've never had a theory lesson, completely self-taught on guitar, bass, and various keyboards.  I didn't look for online courses or tutorials, just sort of plowed away at it for the past 10 years, figuring what works with what and what doesn't and what makes sense.  I'd beg to wager that many of the guitarists you idolize have similar circumstances and never met with a guitar teacher until their label introduced one if they found it necessary.  I'm no Steve Vai, but I can understand the different feelings that the different modes evoke.  I might not know them by name, but goddamn, at its core you're just playing a familiar scale with a different root chosen.  It's not rocket science, it's music, it's natural, it's existed forever.  I love learning new nuances just about every time I sit down with an instrument.  I wouldn't trade this experience for some cut-and-dry music lessons from people with their own music prejudices.

And yes, I'm sure a lot of people care, but really, -should- they?
I've just sent a long PM to Micah explaining my reasoning, I'll not replicate the whole thing here, but just mention one example - The Beatles - not trained in anyway, yet remarkably unconventional to typlical 1960s pop, though not to music theory - they used the IV-I cadence in several of their songs when V-I was the standard, they got that from hymn music, not rock'n'roll - they used it because it just felt right to them, but it is grounded in sane, dry, boring music theory. Theory just explains why things that feel right actually work - you don't need to know it academically to enjoy it or write it, but you do know it in practice through experience - to me they are the same thing.


Nah Dean I don't buy any of this. Such theory smacks of inventing an equation after you're presented with the answer. Consecutive 5ths for example are practically outlawed in traditional theory yet form the basis of most heavy rock (barre chord riffs etc) Take something that is very unconventional harmonically e.g. some of Syd Barret's more complex songs and sit and wait for the theorists to tell us why such progressions have been  musically satisfying to our ears since the dawn of time? Music theory in this regard is no better than back dated history or 20-20 hindsight.


-------------


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 06:19
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


Nah Dean I don't buy any of this. Such theory smacks of inventing an equation after you're presented with the answer. Consecutive 5ths for example are practically outlawed in traditional theory yet form the basis of most heavy rock (barre chord riffs etc) Take something that is very unconventional harmonically e.g. some of Syd Barret's more complex songs and sit and wait for the theorists to tell us why such progressions have been  musically satisfying to our ears since the dawn of time? Music theory in this regard is no better than back dated history or 20-20 hindsight.
Isn't this how all analysis works? No one sat down and said - hmm, if play a note that is 5/4ths of C it must be harmonic, they analysed why C and E sounded good together to find out why.

-------------
What?


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 06:37
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


Nah Dean I don't buy any of this. Such theory smacks of inventing an equation after you're presented with the answer. Consecutive 5ths for example are practically outlawed in traditional theory yet form the basis of most heavy rock (barre chord riffs etc) Take something that is very unconventional harmonically e.g. some of Syd Barret's more complex songs and sit and wait for the theorists to tell us why such progressions have been  musically satisfying to our ears since the dawn of time? Music theory in this regard is no better than back dated history or 20-20 hindsight.
Isn't this how all analysis works? No one sat down and said - hmm, if play a note that is 5/4ths of C it must be harmonic, they analysed why C and E sounded good together to find out why.


Perhaps I've misunderstood you (It wouldn't be the first timeWink) but yes, theory comes after the aesthetic phenomenon appears and the rules are changed to suit what we find pleasing. My take on what you have said previously is that you posit what we will ever  find musically satisfying has been around forever and is already contained in theory ? That is palpably untrue (but perhaps ya didn't say that, and I've been drinking wine so my faculties are somewhat impairedEmbarrassed)


-------------


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 07:05
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


Nah Dean I don't buy any of this. Such theory smacks of inventing an equation after you're presented with the answer. Consecutive 5ths for example are practically outlawed in traditional theory yet form the basis of most heavy rock (barre chord riffs etc) Take something that is very unconventional harmonically e.g. some of Syd Barret's more complex songs and sit and wait for the theorists to tell us why such progressions have been  musically satisfying to our ears since the dawn of time? Music theory in this regard is no better than back dated history or 20-20 hindsight.
Isn't this how all analysis works? No one sat down and said - hmm, if play a note that is 5/4ths of C it must be harmonic, they analysed why C and E sounded good together to find out why.


Perhaps I've misunderstood you (It wouldn't be the first timeWink) but yes, theory comes after the aesthetic phenomenon appears and the rules are changed to suit what we find pleasing. My take on what you have said previously is that you posit what we will ever  find musically satisfying has been around forever and is already contained in theory ? That is palpably untrue (but perhaps ya didn't say that, and I've been drinking wine so my faculties are somewhat impairedEmbarrassed)
Well, it does sound like something I could have said Wink but it is a bit of an extrapolation of what I actually said. LOL
 
However, that is not to say that "in theory" it is not impossible ... unlikely perhaps, but not impossible - pick any 'n' notes from 12 that sound good together and you'll probably get something that someone has discovered before in the 400 years since the formulation of Equal Temperament (which was the result of analysing relationships like 'C' and 'E' I mentioned before). In theory there are 330 possible combinations and permutations of 5 notes from 12, but we use a mere fraction of those possible Pentatonic scales (4 or 5 perhaps) and just transpose them to different keys because the ones that "work" have a strong harmonic relationship between each note.
 
 
 
/edit: the five black notes on a piano keyboard are not accidental ('scuse the pun Embarrassed) they were put there deliberatily based upon music theory - using the intervals betwen them in a different key is not something that was derived from feel or playing by ear even if that is how people use them - same with the "dots" on a guitar fretboard - design, not accident or the need for redundant decoration.


-------------
What?


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 07:24
^ Well OK but when you state 'sounds good together' I suspect you mean consonance and yes, music theory (and its close relation to wavelength physics malarkey) would support why these notes sound aesthetically appealing to we humanoid critters since God was in short pants. (You being scientifically schooled will vouch for same) However if you listen to Bartok's string quartets (no they certainly ain't party pumpin' toe-tappers) you can audibly hear the strings beating against one another (wave interference ?) when the intervals are either microtonal or close (2nd's) but the effect is magically thrilling and I guess technically dissonant - so is there a case to suggest that music theory stops when  dissonance rears its ugly  aesthetically  ambiguous head ?

-------------


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 07:34
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

^ Well OK but when you state 'sounds good together' I suspect you mean consonance and yes, music theory (and its close relation to wavelength physics malarkey) would support why these notes sound aesthetically appealing to we humanoid critters since God was in short pants. (You being scientifically schooled will vouch for same) However if you listen to Bartok's string quartets (no they certainly ain't party pumpin' toe-tappers) you can audibly hear the strings beating against one another (wave interference ?) when the intervals are either microtonal or close (2nd's) but the effect is magically thrilling and I guess technically dissonant - so is there a case to suggest that music theory stops when  dissonance rears its ugly  aesthetically  ambiguous head ?
There wll always be exceptions and those exceptions will always fall outside what is "popular" ... they are never going to be easy-listenning. Bartok knew what he was doing - it wasn't random bum notes or lack of musical knowedge that put them there.

-------------
What?


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 14:15
Excellent question.....Never really looked that deep into my collection of artists and what they did with education.
I do know that Tom Scholz from Boston was a graduate from MIT in some engineering study. He started the band Boston while in school if I remember right....I think in this case his degree helped formulate the distinctive Boston hard rock sound that made that debut album so huge.
I think I'll take a listen....its been a "long time..." since I've played some Boston.


-------------


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 14:41
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Funny ain't it how trained classical musicians yearn to be able to sit down and improvise while the self taught by ear (long haired proggy critters) yearn eventually to study theory ?
The grass is always greener...(whoopsEmbarrassed)

I don't think classical musicians yearn to improvise... they yearn for easier music to play so they can also relax... Tongue




Not true either. We yearn to be able to phrase a 4/4 semi-quaver trill in 13/8 at about 300 crotchet BPM

And yeah Teo... ignore my Beethoven comment, it was rushed and not thought out properly Oh, to be young and blonde...

Hey... don't be a hairist here.. not accepted. 

Now go and dye that thing over your head... TongueBig smile (actually, I'm kinda brown...) 


It's self hairism... I thought that was permissable?

I was thinking of dying it purple... you know, like Billy Connolly's beard? That'd be pretty prog rock I reckon


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 16:31
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Excellent question.....Never really looked that deep into my collection of artists and what they did with education.
I do know that Tom Scholz from Boston was a graduate from MIT in some engineering study. He started the band Boston while in school if I remember right....I think in this case his degree helped formulate the distinctive Boston hard rock sound that made that debut album so huge.
I think I'll take a listen....its been a "long time..." since I've played some Boston.
I saw Boston on their first tour-it was totally awesome!


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 16:43
Originally posted by presdoug presdoug wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Excellent question.....Never really looked that deep into my collection of artists and what they did with education.
I do know that Tom Scholz from Boston was a graduate from MIT in some engineering study. He started the band Boston while in school if I remember right....I think in this case his degree helped formulate the distinctive Boston hard rock sound that made that debut album so huge.
I think I'll take a listen....its been a "long time..." since I've played some Boston.
I saw Boston on their first tour-it was totally awesome!
 
Lucky you.......I never saw them Cry


-------------


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 16:47
I saw Boston live about 10 years ago.  I don't remember that much about the show other than thinking that it was totally awesome and one of the best shows that I had seen.  Their stage was set-up with a lighting system to make it look like the spaceship from their album cover.  I want to say that Asia or Alan Parsons was the opening act, but damn getting old and my failing memory.  It must have been this show:
 

Sat 07/05/2003 Detroit, MI DTE Music Center


-------------


Posted By: LeStaf
Date Posted: March 02 2010 at 16:36
Uzeb members Alain Caron and MIchel Cusson, from Berkeley Music School.
 
Marie Bernard from Et Cetera is graduate from Université de Montréal.
 
I heard somewhere that Frank Zappa was doctor in music but I can't find anything on this, so I believe it's an urban legend.
 
Ralphe Armstrong was (is?) a bass teacher in a University in Chicago, as Michel-Georges Brégent and Vincent Dionne in Montréal.
 
 
 
Among an endless list...


-------------
LeStaff



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk