Prog and (how much) Music Theory?

russellk wrote: Ah, WinterLight, you're a treat. Anyone who in essence argues that the humanities are less complex than the sciences is perhaps not as closely acquainted with either as s/he ought to be. Talk about hedging one's bets: you just performed a misdirection that would make a Freudian proud. The further assertion that those who are involved in researching the humanities are dishonest, somehow feathering their nests by perpetrating some kind of academic hoax, is risible. The best way to ensure one doesn't understand something is to make his salary dependent on that ignorance. For the record, the humanities and the arts are not fields comprised of "essentially simple notions". Notice that I never said there's anything wrong with such simplicity:  it's not a criticism, yet you ostensibly perceive the term "simple" as an epithet--I'll leave to others to decide what this indicates about your worldview.  I well regard the humanities and the arts, as I believe these are essential expressions of humanity.  But as such there's no need to shroud basic, straightforward principles in opaque cloaks. Indeed, many social scientists would argue that such thinking is socially constructed, the bitter legacy of centuries of veneration of the so-called 'natural' sciences. I'm sure that they would argue that point.  But that doesn't imply that the argument has any support. They might also argue that the arts/sciences binary and the intellectual/emotional binary are also socially constructed... "Dichotomy" rather than "binary."  But, otherwise, yes, I'd agree.  Still I don't see how that concept rises above mere tautology. ...serve particular hegemonic interests... No doubt.  But such yeoman's work doesn't modify the actual content of any particular scientific model.  I'm not interested in going tit-for-tat in a more-radical-than-thou contest, but I will say that you're preaching to the choir on this particular point. ...and are taken as 'truth' by the gullible. I'd almost concede this.  Not sure what "truth" means precisely, but I think it should coincide with "reality" (whatever that might mean).  In any case, you're right in that it's naive to think of a scientific model as truth in the sense that it is the particular phenomena that it models.  However, it's a fallacy to conclude from this that therefore there is no truth or that science cannot approximate truth. For you, WinterLight, such concepts as poststructuralism and postmodernism are "essentially simple". If you genuinely believe that, you might want to reflect on your understanding of "essentially simple" philosophers such as Derrida and Foucault. Haven't read either one of these; however, I've read Zizek and Lacan, and have found their work either tautologous or unintelligible (I have to agree completely with Chomsky's assessment here).  I doubt my view would change with exposure to the rest of the PoMo crowd.  Maybe not.  But I'm not persuaded that it's worth my time. By the way, I recently heard a joke about a postmodernist professor grading a student's paper.  The professor observes that the paper is well-reasoned and coherent, yet assigns to it a failing grade.  Why?  The egregious positivism, of course.

Edited by WinterLight - August 16 2008 at 00:04

russellk wrote: If it's OK with you, WinterLight, this is one I'd love to share with my fellow arts academics. They'll be relieved to know their chosen fields of study don't have the intellectual content of more 'intellectually substantive' fields.

Although their mortgages probably hamper their honesty, they should be willing to concede this point.  Observe that "researchers" of the arts and humanities tend to obfuscate essentially simple notions (thereby providing their raison d'etre) whereas the object of scientists and mathematicians is to simplify complex phenomena.  The reasons are transparent, and to be sure, not a matter of coincidence.

jimidom wrote: I'm sure that Brian May and Tom Scholz can relate.

These examples aren't meaningful examples: the academic background of a particular musician is irrelevant to the point.  This isn't an obscure principle, but rather one that should be obvious to any person with even the most rudimentary association with logic.

WinterLight wrote: I don't think that the arts have much intellectual content, but by that I don't intend to denigrate those fields at all; on the contrary, I greatly value their emotional content, something lacking in the most intellectually substantive fields (like mathematics, for example), and through my participation in the arts I obtain fulfillment that elsewhere I can't find.

If it's OK with you, WinterLight, this is one I'd love to share with my fellow arts academics. They'll be relieved to know their chosen fields of study don't have the intellectual content of more 'intellectually substantive' fields.

WinterLight wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Actually, it does, as I said. If you took quantuum mechanics as the branch of physics you were considering, then you'd see this. Not sure what you mean by this.  In any case, I think that you mean "quantum physics" rather than "quantum mechanics" as the former involves the study of quantum phenomena whereas the latter deals with the mathematical techniques used in the development of quantum theory--a subtle distinction, but important nonetheless. So what you're saying is that understanding the theory - and the finer points of it - is important?   Quantum Mechanics is a kind of framework, so my choice of terms is accurate enough for the purpose.   While the study of the physics of music is fascinating, and a vital addition to any theoretical studies, there is more to it than "simple" waveforms.   The 18th-Century violinist Tartini made copious studies of the acoustic properties of his instrument and the sounds it produced, and wrote some amazing pieces of music and changed forever the way that other violinists would play as a result. Understanding and applying theory is essential to progressing music, otherwise you're simply aping. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the latter approach - but we're considering Prog and (how much) music theory here.   I'm sorry you're not sure what I meant - I know that music can be really complex and demanding. Hopefully the links I've just hinted at should give more than a clue to a quantum physics student! That's kinda what I said, but with more words, making the one mistake of trying to convince anyone that music is not premised upon rules. It is. What, precisely, are these rules?  It shouldn't be difficult to give an explicit delineation of those alleged rules.  You said earlier that the rules of music aren't hard; "To be frank, music theory is not a particularly demanding field: it is basically like studying a very regular grammar." - now you're asking me what they are?   I said that the rules of music are complex - why would you think that it's not difficult to explain them?   I don't know all the rules of music so can't tell you all of them - that was one of the points I was making.    You seemed to suggest that you do, therefore isn't it you that should be listing the rules to me, not the other way around?   I disagree - why should it sound good? Well, what would be the point?  You may as well set yourself to making visually unappealing paintings and unpalatable food, all while arrayed in a hairshirt.  Of course, the concept of "good" is a relative one: a composer need not make music pleasing to everyone's ear, his own is sufficient although in this case he should wax indignant over the smallness of his audience.   The point is that it's art, and the point that "good" is relative is exactly what I was getting at.   Consider Tracy Emin or Damien Hirst.   NB "Wringing hands" over key signatures worked for Bach. Not so much key signatures: one finds many incidentals (or to use your earlier patois, "wrong notes") in the compositions, especially in the case of canons (like the inverted or mirror, for example), of JS Bach.  It seems credible to suggest that for Bach, at least, composition was an exercise in complexity.  Although not unusual for the Baroque era, one does not find this quality quite so common in other periods. Incidentals aren't the same as wrong notes!   You've taken my point about one piece of music entirely out of context - do I detect some sour grapes at work?   I only stated key signatures, because that was what you said - now it seems you're disagreeing with yourself!   Personally, I do not believe that Bach composed purely for excercises in complexity - he loved to improvise.   There are most certainly compositions which appear to be "mere" excercises in complexity in other periods - why would you say that it's not common? Aren't the compositions of Mozart, Debussy, Wagner, Liszt, Schoenberg or Birtwhistle complex? What about Palestrina, Tallis or even Leonin?   Or did you mean something else by "this quality"?   You've clearly only studied a very narrow area of musical theory - try some of the complicated stuff, which IS demanding and highly irregular. Always be wary of the use of "clearly."  I'm sorry, but it's laughable when the arts and humanities intelligentsia boast about the complexity of their fields--it really isn't that complex, but for the sake of the ego indeed it is.  In any case, give examples of the "complicated stuff" and show in what sense it is "demanding and highly irregular"--it shouldn't be a difficult task to fulfill if there is any substance to your claim. I choose most of my words carefully, and from your statements and questions in this thread, it becomes ever clearer. You seem to dismiss music and the arts as "light" subjects, yet show little knowledge of them whilst appearing to suggest that you can understand all music just by listening to a tiny portion of the canon. If that were true, why are you not a mega-platinum-selling megastar? Clearly, if you haven't studied something you can't possibly have a grasp of it . Creativity comes absolutely easily to those blessed with a natural talent for it. One acquires creativity in the same sense one acquires intuition.  I have little reason to believe that one is simply "blessed with a natural talent." Oh dear oh dear oh dear... I'm not even going there.   For the rest of us wannabe artists, it's a slog, I agree. That's only because the "wannabe artists" have mired themselves with "theory." If you hadn't studied the theory of grammar, you would not have been able to elucidate your thoughts. If you had studied the theory of music, your thoughts would be different.   Personally, I don't feel "mired" by theory at all - quite the opposite - presumably you have evidence to support your hard assertion, which I feel is quite ridiculous and at odds with reality.   It's hard to see any truth in the statement; "wannabe artists" (clearly you have something in mind by adding the quotes - aren't we all wannabes until we're recognised? Are you actually a megastar in disguise so you exclude yourself from the category of wannabe, or are you just not artistically inclined?) have mired themselves with "theory" (again, you use quotes, as if theory is somehow a debatable concept when applied to music).

This is a classic debate which does not have a simple answer.

I didn't mean my comments to be a personal attack and I'm truly sorry if it came across that way. Part of what I was driving at is that many who claim no knowledge or interest in understanding music theory already have a fairly solid background with it in the first place and simply don't realize it. If you don't understand basic harmony you can't recognize a deviation from it. if you aren't familiar with basic forms you can't recognize and appreciate the deviations from them that are present in the best Prog. Since most folks at this site see, hear, recognize and appreciate these aspects of prog rock, they already have some rudimentary level of familiarity with music theory. Without some level of music theory knowledge you couldn't tell prog rock apart from Turkey In The Straw. All you'd be able to say is "I like this song better than that one". People may not have gained this knowledge of music theory from formal study, but they have it all the same, and saying that they don't have it or don't need it is facetious reasoning. They are using it every time they listen and every time they play.

"I KNOW that an artist DOES NOT need a discipline to begin with.", " my art will not be subsequently influenced by it", and "CREATING Art is, GENERALLY a work WITHOUT discipline".

These are statements that I can say with relative certainty that you will change you mind about in the next 6-8 years If you continue your study, get over the hurdle of "hating" your theory courses, and allow yourself to see how having this knowledge "opens" and "expands" your musical horizons. No one likes studying it ( I know, I've done it nearly to death ), but the benefits are so amazing that you'll eventually be unable to imagine working without them. A true artist (in music at least) is probably the MOST disciplined person you'll ever meet.

Edited by Trademark - August 14 2008 at 09:38

WinterLight wrote: Certif1ed wrote: WinterLight wrote: pianomandust wrote: There is a little saying that goes around in classical musicians' circles: "You can't break the rules unless you know the rules." But it's a mistake to consider music theory as a set of rules--it's a descriptive rather than prescriptive theory, i.e. it's simply a collection of guidelines on what generally works or is sonorous to the occidental ear, not a body of regulations as to how or what to compose. It's also a typical beginner's mistake to think that music has no rules. In a strict sense, music does not operate according to rules as does say physics (and even this is a somewhat misleading vulgarism).  However, there are, as I said previously, guidelines as to what "works."  This should be obvious to anyone not interested in protecting a facade of prestige or sophistication. Actually, it does, as I said. If you took quantuum mechanics as the branch of physics you were considering, then you'd see this. I have not said that these are not equivalent to guidelines, just that there are also rules or cultural protocols. I wasn't disagreeing with your statement, just adding to it.   It has - and by studying theory, you begin to learn what they are. If it is a "beginner's mistake" to assert that music is without rules, then it is a sophomore's mistake to think that music is premised upon rules.  More generally it is a fallacy to regard one's limited experience and training as representative of the totality of knowledge in a particular field.   That's kinda what I said, but with more words, making the one mistake of trying to convince anyone that music is not premised upon rules. It is.   The subsequent generality makes no sense in context, even though it's true in and of itself.   By practising composition, you learn what they are. There is one rule to composition:  make it sound good to your ear.  If you choose to wring your hands over keys, time signatures, etc., then indulge in your obsession, but don't expect to ever be great. I disagree - why should it sound good? NB "Wringing hands" over key signatures worked for Bach.   Hopefully there will never be a day when anyone understands them all. To be frank, music theory is not a particularly demanding field: it is basically like studying a very regular grammar.    Blimey - Mr expert!   You've clearly only studied a very narrow area of musical theory - try some of the complicated stuff, which IS demanding and highly irregular.     Creativity, on the other hand, does not come so easily.   Creativity comes absolutely easily to those blessed with a natural talent for it.   For the rest of us wannabe artists, it's a slog, I agree.

Edited by Certif1ed - August 13 2008 at 06:58

Winterlight's Grammar analogy is quite possibly the closest we'll get to an accurate view of music theory. Yes, theory is mostly descriptive. It is a way of understanding what others have done and a general sort of language has resulted from this study. No one is obligated to follow any rules, but there are physical properties to sound and pitch that have proven useful and are therefore taught and studied. Everyone who ever picks up an instrument and learns a song or two, no matter the method he uses to learn, is gaining knowledge of these extremely basic theoretical principles whether by formal study or by osmosis, they are learning music theory.

But like grammar, there has to be some common syntax or intelligible communication is rendered impossible. Just go and read some Gertrude Stein (or to a lesser degree ee cummings or James Joyce) if you doubt this. This need for communication is a major part of why music theory is taught as a set of "rules", in much the same way that grammar is taught as rules. Anyone who reads knows that no author uses grammar exclusively according to those rules, just as virtually no composer would ever consider using music theory as a set of rules. (classroom exercises are an exception, of course). We use just enough "grammar" to make sure our audience knows what we're trying to communicate, and then let our imaginations fill in the spaces with new and unusual sounds that we (the composers) find pleasing.

The idea that one can create intelligible music that others will understand and enjoy by "creating straight from the heart and soul" is, however, completely ludicrous. Put someone who has never played any instrument in front of a piano (or any other instrument) and tell them to "create from the heart" and you'll get garbage. Learning to play is learning theory. Learning to copy (interpret) others is learning theory. Learning to compose is learning theory. Listening to and reading about music can be learning theory, because music always is (and at the same time never is) music theory.

It is not about learning the rules and then breaking them. That is an incredibly juvenile attitude. Learning to play, to interpret, to compose is learning about how music works. Formal study can be tedious, but it is faster than waiting for inspiration and experience to teach you what you need to know. Formal training is a jump-start into the wider world of music. Once you know the basics of how sounds and tones are assembled into music your inspiration and experience can take you much much further.   But however you approach it, if you know you're playing in 4/4 time and in the key of E you already know some theory.

I am not affirming that studying and having at least a basic knowledge of music theory is not mainly necessary to perform music, it is in fact highly recommendable for people that need to play some compositions without having, previously, heard the compositions. However, if we take a look at people who are rather insensible about music itself, they tend to be like mere robot. For instance, a person who was not particularly fond of music, and was obligated to follow a path he did not liked, because his parents wanted him to, he would eventually hate music itself.
I love music long before I have even did touch a guitar, and personally, I utterly hate theory in music.
I KNOW that an artist DOES NOT need a discipline to begin with.
When you are producing art, you are subsequently creating it by heart, soul and mind. You try to be diverse, and (as far as prog and avant-garde goes) unorthodox, yet sometimes you seem to be in touch with a pattern (therefore leading your horizons more into the use of a more scientific method, hence music theory). And finally when you compose, the song, you get to listen to it, and if it comes from you, you will like it, if its the contrary, you will hate it (and sometimes, music theory restricts you at that point).
So, all I'm saying it that, if you find within yourself that you need to produce YOUR art, even if the totally scientific music theory does not let you to do that, you must do it. CREATING Art is, GENERALLY a work WITHOUT discipline, but there are people who put RULES on it, just to PERFORM the art of OTHERS. And to call something "fine arts" is COMPLETELY STUPID, but that is my point of view.

WinterLight wrote: Certif1ed wrote: WinterLight wrote: pianomandust wrote: There is a little saying that goes around in classical musicians' circles: "You can't break the rules unless you know the rules." But it's a mistake to consider music theory as a set of rules--it's a descriptive rather than prescriptive theory, i.e. it's simply a collection of guidelines on what generally works or is sonorous to the occidental ear, not a body of regulations as to how or what to compose. It's also a typical beginner's mistake to think that music has no rules. In a strict sense, music does not operate according to rules as does say physics (and even this is a somewhat misleading vulgarism).  However, there are, as I said previously, guidelines as to what "works."  This should be obvious to anyone not interested in protecting a facade of prestige or sophistication.   It has - and by studying theory, you begin to learn what they are. If it is a "beginner's mistake" to assert that music is without rules, then it is a sophomore's mistake to think that music is premised upon rules.  More generally it is a fallacy to regard one's limited experience and training as representative of the totality of knowledge in a particular field.   By practising composition, you learn what they are. There is one rule to composition:  make it sound good to your ear.  If you choose to wring your hands over keys, time signatures, etc., then indulge in your obsession, but don't expect to ever be great.   Hopefully there will never be a day when anyone understands them all. To be frank, music theory is not a particularly demanding field: it is basically like studying a very regular grammar.  Creativity, on the other hand, does not come so easily.